Lamest Masters

[HighSpeedScene]

The main dissatisfied for me about the weir win was the 75 on Saturday - yes, conditions were brutal, but it just felt like there was something missing when the winner shoots 75 on moving day.

 

Nithjngy really against weir as far as quality of winner or anything. The tourney just felt...incomplete.

 

Same reason I loved schwartzels win - dude did something so awesome over final 4 holes. If tiger or Phil had done that, they would replay that final round every single year. That tourney had a money shot!

[dlygrisse]

Immelman, I remember thinking, really did he just win? Seems like a nice guy though.

[mattsuth87]

I have the 03 masters on dvd and watch it all the time. Maybe boring to some but to call weir a journeyman is a little unfair and that tournament was huge for Canadian golf.

[Dave230]

Immelman's was fairly boring at the time but it seemed like a special performance to win the Masters to comfortably for a player in his twenties. So a lot of people believed he was going to become one of the best in the world but it turned out to be a one-off unfortunately. He had the swing of a top player though.

[Titleist87]

Was Zach's win the year winter settled in at Augusta for the weekend?

[dlygrisse]

Tiger in '97, I mean he was so far ahead it was a real yawner on Sunday. :)

[VNutz]

Was Zach's win the year winter settled in at Augusta for the weekend?

 

Yep, cold and very windy weekend. Changed the entire makeup of the course.

 

Immelman's win was the most boring and disappointing I remember watching. I can't remember if the conditions were tough, but nobody made a run, Immelman came in with a 75 to win... I kept waiting for some of the patented Masters back 9 magic, only to be bored.

[ZAP]

Sad thing is all those boring winners have exactly one more green jacket than I do.

[DTXgolfer12]

No such thing as a "lame" masters. I can't think of another tournament that has such dramatic finishes. If you don't appreciate someone two putting their way to a green jacket then you aren't realistic about what golf really is.

[QuigleyDU]

I dont know why it is not mentioned more Zach johnson win at plus one in the Masters and laying up on every par 5. sorry pass.

[VinceFurnier]

Gonna have to say 1992. If Couples doesn't win that one major his career would be properly regarded.

 

[Lodestone]

Sad thing is all those boring winners have exactly one more green jacket than I do.

 

and one more than Greg Norman.

[chicagolongball]

2003, no question. Easily the most forgettable of them all.

[Lodestone]

I dont know why it is not mentioned more Zach johnson win at plus one in the Masters and laying up on every par 5. sorry pass.

 

they had just lengthened the course to "Tiger Proof" it, and it was very cold and windy that year. I got no problem with Zack's win... 72 holes...add 'em up...who had the lowest score??

[Lodestone]

No such thing as a "lame" masters. I can't think of another tournament that has such dramatic finishes. If you don't appreciate someone two putting their way to a green jacket then you aren't realistic about what golf really is.

 

Thank you, sir! on the money!

 

the woods and ponds are full of flashy players' errant shots....ask The Shark.

[Huskypride28]

I'll agree with others and say Weir, Immelman, Johnson, and Spieth. Nothing against those players I just thought those tournaments were boring to watch. No drama, no late charge by anyone, nothing really that made it fun to watch. I could even throw in Schwartzel's win in there too maybe.

 

Not sure how you could call Norman's collapse lame. Poor performance maybe, but definitely not a lame Masters by any means.

[Lodestone]

I'll agree with others and say Weir, Immelman, Johnson, and Spieth. Nothing against those players I just thought those tournaments were boring to watch. No drama, no late charge by anyone, nothing really that made it fun to watch. I could even throw in Schwartzel's win in there too maybe.

 

Not sure how you could call Norman's collapse lame. Poor performance maybe, but definitely not a lame Masters by any means.

 

as far as my personal entertainment value, the one I enjoyed the least, I can't remember the year, but it rained Saturday afternoon, and the 3rd round was discontinued, and played early Sunday, before TV coverage. El Tigre went on some crazy birdie binge, and in essence, by the time the cameras rolled, it was over. Not Tiger's fault, but that really pissed me off. Never cared for the dude after that. He ruined my Masters Sunday!!

[caniac6]

No such thing as a "lame" masters. I can't think of another tournament that has such dramatic finishes. If you don't appreciate someone two putting their way to a green jacket then you aren't realistic about what golf really is.

Totally agree! I look forward to this tournament every year, and have never been disapointed.Everyone in the field had to qualify to get in. It's not a Monday qualifier catching lightning in a bottle. Every winner beat a field full of winners. Some past winners like Weir or Immelman have fallen on hard times, but every Tuesday of Masters week they are eating dinner with a lot of other guys wearing the same sport coat. There are a lot of guys that wish they were there.

 

[OutBackHack]

Weir win, totally. Poor Len Mattiace.

 

9 strokes better on the weekend and loses a playoff...

 

And was seen practice putting outside a hotel in Cartagena this afternoon prior to Web.Com event this week.

Golf is an amazing game!

[KrazyTrain18]

I found last years Masters to be one of the most boring in recent memory. Watching one player run away with it generally is pretty boring to watch.

[Conrad1953]

Poor Weirsy gets no respect.

[MadGolfer76]

Weakest major field, by choice. Deserves every mediocre outcome it sets itself up for.

[PGArox]

2003. Watching 2 journeymen try to outchoke each other was not befitting of a Masters. Falling over the line with a 3 putt bogey in a playoff is not the statement of a champion.

 

That 2003 Masters held a lot of drama, and disappointment, for Tiger fans. Tiger was gunning for his third consecutive Masters victory and did himself no favors when he opened with a 76.

 

Tiger proceeded to slowly work his way back into contention, and a third round 66 (tied low round of the day) left him at -1 going into the final round, just two strokes back of the eventual winner Mike Weir.

 

Phil Mickelson was also on -1 heading into the final round, and Vijay Singh was on -2. But the three big guns came up just a tad short, with Phil finishing in 3rd place for the third consecutive year. :(

[Conrad1953]

True that is. Thursday and Friday aren't that great but by the weekend the

best are usually battling.

[PGArox]

Weakest major field, by choice. Deserves every mediocre outcome it sets itself up for.

 

Yeah, it would serve 'em right if a Todd Hamilton or Ben Curtis won.

[MadGolfer76]

Weakest major field, by choice. Deserves every mediocre outcome it sets itself up for.

 

Yeah, it would serve 'em right if a Todd Hamilton or Ben Curtis won.

 

Mediocre outcome and mediocre champion are two different things. ;)

[PZero]

I found last years Masters to be one of the most boring in recent memory. Watching one player run away with it generally is pretty boring to watch.

 

I thought it was great, but I watched all of Jordan's rounds thanks to Masters.com. He was simply unbelievable and you knew you were watching something special on Thursday. Sunday did provide some drama as Phil and Rose tried to catch him.

[knock it close]

I found last years Masters to be one of the most boring in recent memory. Watching one player run away with it generally is pretty boring to watch.

 

I thought it was great, but I watched all of Jordan's rounds thanks to Masters.com. He was simply unbelievable and you knew you were watching something special on Thursday. Sunday did provide some drama as Phil and Rose tried to catch him.

I think it is going to take a few years to truly appreciate what Jordan did last year, especially if he can build off the immense success he had last year in the next few to come.

[PZero]

I found last years Masters to be one of the most boring in recent memory. Watching one player run away with it generally is pretty boring to watch.

 

I thought it was great, but I watched all of Jordan's rounds thanks to Masters.com. He was simply unbelievable and you knew you were watching something special on Thursday. Sunday did provide some drama as Phil and Rose tried to catch him.

I think it is going to take a few years to truly appreciate what Jordan did last year, especially if he can build off the immense success he had last year in the next few to come.

 

I completely agree, but I'm still a little surprised how many here thought it was boring.

[isaacbm]

The Immelman and Weir Masters, to me, are only 'lame' because they haven't done squat since. Yet, if anything, they will play in this tournament until they don't want to any longer.

 

not for anything but if I could win a 'lame' Masters I would die a pretty happy dude.

 

Ok let's give Weir a break, he did win twice after the Masters win. He has won a Tour Championship and a WGC event. This isn;t too bad for a career.

• Wins – 8
  
• 2nd-place finishes – 10
  
• 3rd-place finishes – 8
  
• Top 10 finishes – 69
  
• Top 25 finishes – 140
  

To be fair, I'm Canadian and 2003 was a boring Masters!

Finished t3 at the US open in '03 too. Now obviously he is terrible right now but back in '03 he was quite good.

 

Back in 03 I bet you Weir could hit a golf ball over those mountains....

 

Seriously, i'm with you guys on this one...

The guy won 30 million dollars in his career. I'd say he's a little better than a journeyman! How soon we all forget in today's fast pace "what have you done for me lately" era.