Can The Masters be boring? Yes, with Phil Mickelson
This is not to take away from Mickelson’s round – maybe the most impressive he has ever shot – but Sunday was a snooze.
It looked like it was going to be a sizzling finish at the turn, with about eight or nine players, including some of your all-time all-stars, within reach.
Nobody did much of anything, though. Mickelson won because he made the least number of mistakes, which is how it goes at Augusta. It begs the question: Is Jack Nicklaus right about his criticism of the lengthening of Augusta? Can no one now make a charge on this course?
It didn’t help, as far as drama, that the final pairing of Mickelson and Fred Couples was as warm and fuzzy as a spotted puppy under a wagon wheel. This was like watching two buddies have a friendly round at the local muni.
I was all jacked up for Sunday. By the time it was winding down, I was ready to switch to Ultimate Fighting.
|« Golf in Ireland -- but first, battle of the British brats||Ben Crenshaw at the Masters: Is Augusta National a time capsule? »|
I still hate him though.
Was it just me, or did it seem that Tiger's mind was just not on the golf? The fully focused Tiger would never just fade like that on the final nine holes of a major championship.
(I think his mind kept wandering back to California where his ailing father is residing.)
You sound like most rational, intelligent Americans the morning after the last two presidential elections.
Alex, Tiger did fade. Otherwise he would've won. All other things being equal, Phil Mickelson can't hold a candle to Tiger. No one can, really.
But the 2005 Masters, well, that was pure theatre.
Comments are closed for this post.