The Masters 2015 **MOD warning in OP**

benny79

I think he'll give Rory a run for that no 1 spot! his putting is unbelievable & not just this week.

sheroman01

Wombatman wrote: »

The Unconventional Theory: You should look at the hole not the ball from the moment you set the club behind the ball until you complete your putting stroke.

http://www.golf.com/instruction/new-way-putt-look-hole

Wow, extremely interesting! I do the usual - line up, get a good feel, then stare at the ball and hit it. I also play cross-handed (left hand on bottom of grip, i'm a right handed golfer), I wonder if this is actually a factor in why my putting is relatively decent. And I now wonder will this new method further improve my putting...looking forward to trying it out

Trond

rrpc wrote: »

Apparently they had it running overnight but the humidity meant that there was a lot of moisture on the greens that the sub air system can't deal with; it's designed for rain which goes deeper into the sod.

In some ways, Spieth's inexperience in Augusta was an advantage. A lot of players didn't take advantage of the softer greens because they were so used to being punished for going for the pins. They also seemed to be expecting a lot more travel on the greens from their approach shots and didn't get it. Spieth just took advantage from day one and it paid off.

That's a good point actually.

I just felt there was a little something lacking in terms of drama with no glass like greens like in previous tournaments.

stockdam

Johnny kills wrote: »

Is Speith the first to not look at the ball when he's putting?

No it's been around a long long time. Did Johnny Miller try it for a while? I tried it long before Spieth started playing but I didn't get any benefit. Many different techniques and grips have been used. One of the most successful methods of putting was croquette style but that was banned.

People have tried one handed and even closing their eyes but most pros stick with the traditional method.

Also try chipping whilst looking at the hole. It takes confidence and needs a simple repeating swing.

Redzah

benny79 wrote: »

I think he'll give Rory a run for that no 1 spot! his putting is unbelievable & not just this week.

Not sure about this, Spieth was unbelieveable at the Masters and his putting was a lot to do with it. The main reason I query whether he could become a world number 1 and dominant is because he lacks the power game of some of his rivals. Woods had it for his dominant years, McIlroy has it and basically the power game can help a player when they are not at their best still challenge for titles. Furthermore, the powergame doesn't disappear on an offday, it just becomes a bit wayward.

I'm not sure Spieth can put that consistently well for a sustained period (i.e. the next 10 years) to be dominant world number 1. His current form reminds me of the period luke Donald went through when he became world number 1, basically an unbelieveable shortgame but very difficult to sustain.
I think Spieth is an unbelieveable player and will be in the top 20 golfers for years to come but I'm not so sure about him being a consistent challenger to the World number 1.

fryup

razorblunt wrote: »

I know most golfers look different with their caps off but man Spieth gets older looking, that receding hairline will have him looking Arnold Palmer-esque by 2020! Hopefully with some of his trophy cabinet too!

+ 100

:eek: jeepers ..with his cap off he looks more like 41 than 21

stockdam

Redzah wrote: »

Not sure about this, Spieth was unbelieveable at the Masters and his putting was a lot to do with it. The main reason I query whether he could become a world number 1 and dominant is because he lacks the power game of some of his rivals. Woods had it for his dominant years, McIlroy has it and basically the power game can help a player when they are not at their best still challenge for titles. Furthermore, the powergame doesn't disappear on an offday, it just becomes a bit wayward.

Spieth mentioned this himself in that he will never have Rory's length. Length isn't everything though otherwise Day and Johnston would be pushing Rory more. What McIroy has is a superior all round game and that's why he's number 1. He hits his irons so well and so high that he can shot directly at the pin. His 4 iron (?) to the par 3 4th yesterday was one of the shots of the Masters. It was so high and controlled that he pitched the ball and stopped it within 10 feet of the flag; that shot is outside of the capability of almost all of his peers; Woods had that shot in his prime also.

Hitting 2 clubs less that Spieth and hitting the ball higher is such an advantage that Spieth will find hard to live with long term.

Redzah

stockdam wrote: »

Spieth mentioned this himself in that he will never have Rory's length. Length isn't everything though otherwise Day and Johnston would be pushing Rory more. What McIroy has is a superior all round game and that's why he's number 1. He hits his irons so well and so high that he can shot directly at the pin. His 4 iron (?) to the par 3 4th yesterday was one of the shots of the Masters. It was so high and controlled that he pitched the ball and stopped it within 10 feet of the flag; that shot is outside of the capability of almost all of his peers; Woods had that shot in his prime also.

Hitting 2 clubs less that Spieth and hitting the ball higher is such an advantage that Spieth will find hard to live with long term.

Yep, I agree with most of this. However, what I didn't mention is that it is McIlroys and formerly Woods controlled and consistent power game which makes them stand out from the Bubbas and DJ's of the game (who are too wayward)

Im not so sure that McIlroys all round game is that superior but his powertap that he can turn on makes a huge difference. I don't think McIlroy for instance has the best shortgame I've ever seen and is extremely streaky and normally when he wins it is because he longgame is so superior to the rest of the field.

stockdam

Redzah wrote: »

Im not so sure that McIlroys all round game is that superior but his powertap that he can turn on makes a huge difference. I don't think McIlroy for instance has the best shortgame I've ever seen and is extremely streaky and normally when he wins it is because he longgame is so superior to the rest of the field.

I didn't mean that he was the best at everything as he clearly isn't from 8 iron in. He has a great advantage at long par threes and par 5s as he hits a lovely high ball with his long irons. Spieth is a great player but I think he will just fall short against McIlroy as Rory has a long game 2nd to none.

First Up

stockdam wrote: »

I didn't mean that he was the best at everything as he clearly isn't from 8 iron in. He has a great advantage at long par threes and par 5s as he hits a lovely high ball with his long irons. Spieth is a great player but I think he will just fall short against McIlroy as Rory has a long game 2nd to none.

Well you know the old one about driving for show.....

Rory hits some awful approach shots, relative to his position on the fairway and he is an average putter. His great driving only matters if he takes advantage of it.

stockdam

First Up wrote: »

Well you know the old one about driving for show.....

Rory hits some awful approach shots, relative to his position on the fairway and he is an average putter. His great driving only matters if he takes advantage of it.

Funny how he's No. 1 in the World.........he must be doing something right!

Redzah

First Up wrote: »

Well you know the old one about driving for show.....

Rory hits some awful approach shots, relative to his position on the fairway and he is an average putter. His great driving only matters if he takes advantage of it.

See for me because his driving and long game is so good that the events where he may not take full advantage of it (i.e. this week at the masters), he still finishes in the top 5. For nearly every other player including Spieth, this would not be possible. For me this is why Rory is world number 1 as he has a consistent powergame that is unrivalled. However, Rory will only become as good and as dominant as Tiger was when his shortgame is up there with the worlds best like Tigers was.

Basically, the equation for Rory becoming dominant like woods is;

Rorys Longgame + Micklesons short game + Spieths putting = Tiger Dominence

Personally, I don't think Rory will come close to matching Woods as he was that good in his heyday but just my opinion.

Probably a bit off topic here so my apologies.

AdamD

Redzah wrote: »

Yep, I agree with most of this. However, what I didn't mention is that it is McIlroys and formerly Woods controlled and consistent power game which makes them stand out from the Bubbas and DJ's of the game (who are too wayward)

Im not so sure that McIlroys all round game is that superior but his powertap that he can turn on makes a huge difference. I don't think McIlroy for instance has the best shortgame I've ever seen and is extremely streaky and normally when he wins it is because he longgame is so superior to the rest of the field.

I would have said the opposite, Rory wins when his putting clicks, which needs to happen more often.

Redzah

AdamD wrote: »

I would have said the opposite, Rory wins when his putting clicks, which needs to happen more often.

What I'm saying is that he still competes when his putting doesn't click because his long game is so good. This is unusual and most others would not compete with a poor week of putting. When his putting clicks then of course he wins, this is obvious and im not sure how you determined I was saying the opposite in my posts.

diomed

stockdam wrote: »

I didn't mean that he was the best at everything as he clearly isn't from 8 iron in. He has a great advantage at long par threes and par 5s as he hits a lovely high ball with his long irons. Spieth is a great player but I think he will just fall short against McIlroy as Rory has a long game 2nd to none.

I agree with your point about Rory's short irons. He often flies the green or goes long left with short irons.

First Up

stockdam wrote: »

Funny how he's No. 1 in the World.........he must be doing something right!

Of course he is doing many things superbly. But his extra distance off the tee does not convert to birdie chances as often as it might.

efb

droped wrote: »

Hardly deserves a boom! He was second favourite before it started. Not some come from behind never heard of journeyman weekend hacker who got into the masters by accident because he got the wrong directions to his local singles stableford round. If you predicted that, a boom would be well deserved sir.

who pissed on your corn flakes?

Tobyglen

Thinking back, it was a very disappointing Masters. Greens were way too soft and encouraged low scoring. There's little or no test off the tees -very few fairway bunkers and massive fairways, huge bailout areas in many holes. The water hardly comes into play in the 11th, 12th, 15th and 16th. Augusta defense is it's greens and when they are this soft it becomes similar to any other PGA event.
I always loved Augusta when you can visibly see a players nerve fray because of the condition of the greens.

-18 shouldn't be winning a major, this is suppose to be the ultimate test and it failed badly. US Open is a greater test of golf and you actually get punished for poor golf.

stockdam

Tobyglen wrote: »

-18 shouldn't be winning a major, this is suppose to be the ultimate test and it failed badly. US Open is a greater test of golf and you actually get punished for poor golf.

The Masters is all about risk/reward and about birdies/eagles. That gets the crowd going. Watching par golf is not what the Masters is about now.

Trond

stockdam wrote: »

The Masters is all about risk/reward and about birdies/eagles. That gets the crowd going. Watching par golf is not what the Masters is about now.

Ive never heard previous Masters ever described as "par golf".

His comment about the greens is 100% correct imo

kiers47

It's hard to argue that the best most in form player won the tournament. The other majors often throw up shocks but rare enough that you see a complete random winner of the masters.

Regardless of the test the best player definitely won.

Pierce_1991

stockdam wrote: »

The Masters is all about risk/reward and about birdies/eagles. That gets the crowd going. Watching par golf is not what the Masters is about now.

I agree but maybe there wasn't as much risk this year. The best example I can think of is the front of the 15th green. How many balls did we see hold up on that little hill at the front? If you hit it short at all you should be in the water, that should be that risk.

PARlance

I really think the "soft green" thing is being exaggerated. Yes, the greens were softer than the average Masters, that doesn't mean they weren't a challenge. Spieth didn't win it by going at flags, he won it because he gave a masterclass in putting.

His fellow pros were amazed by his performance. It's not often that happens. If they're impressed then that's enough for me.

Cut was +2 and better. The main field was bunched between -5 & +2 after 2 rounds of "soft greens". Hardly comparable to a PGA shootout

rrpc

PARlance wrote: »

I really think the "soft green" thing is being exaggerated. Yes, the greens were softer than the average Masters, that doesn't mean they weren't a challenge. Spieth didn't win it by going at flags, he won it because he gave a masterclass in putting.

Actually his putting was average for the last two days. It was his putting on the first two days that won it for him.

Day|Spieth|McIlroy|Field
Thurs|1.39|1.61|1.69
Fri|1.39|1.5|1.64
Sat|1.67|1.72|1.68
Sun|1.56|1.72|1.56


Where he beat the field consistently and well was his GIR

Day|Spieth|McIlroy|Field
Thurs|83%|67%|63%
Fri|72%|56%|62%
Sat|78%|78%|66%
Sun|67%|94%|61%

HighLine

rrpc wrote: »

Actually his putting was average for the last two days. It was his putting on the first two days that won it for him.

Day|Spieth|Field
Thurs|1.39|1.69
Fri|1.39|1.64
Sat|1.67|1.68
Sun|1.56|1.56

Do traditional putting stats paint the full picture though?.... I would be interested to see the strokes gained figures.

Seve OB

I think the best stat tracker is our eyes

we all seen the la holding great putts and playing great shots, he thoroughly deserved his win by being the best all round player all week

rrpc

HighLine wrote: »

Do traditional putting stats paint the full picture though?.... I would be interested to see the strokes gained figures.

They would be interesting, but if we're trying to see where he gained an advantage over the rest of the field then those stats are a good indication.

His putting was good, but it did deteriorate over the last two days where he had three 3 putts. Putts per hole on the first two days were unreal.

First Up

Seve OB wrote: »

I think the best stat tracker is our eyes

we all seen the la holding great putts and playing great shots, he thoroughly deserved his win by being the best all round player all week

Agreed.

Its about more than the putting average. A side hill 6-footer under pressure counts the same statistically as a 3 inch tap-in.

rrpc

First Up wrote: »

Agreed.

Its about more than the putting average. A side hill 6-footer under pressure counts the same statistically as a 3 inch tap-in.

Should you not get some credit for putting your ball within three inches of the hole?

First Up

rrpc wrote: »

Should you not get some credit for putting your ball within three inches of the hole?

Of course, but statistically, you don't.