Best Buckeye;1448550; said:
I was struck more by how many vbucks he cost me by his sissying up for this T.
For the last ten years or so the game (not sport) has been won by tiger or whoever was able to get lucky and not make as many mistakes . I mean he hasn't got any competion, look at the way Perry folded up like a house of cards.
When the masters is controlled at the end by players who are really lower tier plyers the game (not sport) is in the crapper.
Man, I am really having to bite my tongue when I read crap like this. (but why would that stop me?)
You'd think all the other guys on tour are 10 handicappers.
NONE of the three guys left standing at the end are lower tier players. Perry is a proven winner and both he and Campbell are Ryder Cup players. Cabrerra just won the US Open a couple of years ago for cryin' out loud - and he WON it, he didn't luck out or have it given to him. He did get pretty lucky in the Masters playoff, but that's part of the game too. He gutted it out on Sunday with his B game and it paid off for him.
To say Perry folded up like a house of cards shows just how ignorant you are. He didn't pull a VandeVeld by any means. He hit one bad chip shot - which he admitted to - and maybe a tactical error on 18 by hitting driver instead of taking the bunkers out of play with a 3 wood.
I mean, Tiger bogeyed the last 2 holes yesterday, also. And he bogeyed the last 2 holes in '06 when he had a 2 shot lead, and ended up in a playoff - just like Perry did yesterday.
I mean, my God man, did you see the round of golf that Mickelson played? One bad swing on 12, but man he striped it all day, knocking down the flagsticks and hitting it way closer than Tiger pretty much every single hole.
No competition for Tiger? He kicked Tiger's butt head-to-head and should have beaten him by 4 or 5 shots that round.
I don't think recreational golfers, or non-golfers such as yourself, have any inkling as to just how difficult these courses the pros play really are. Especially a major. You can't see how severe the slopes are, and how big the hills are on TV. And these guys hit the ball so far and so good, it makes the course look infinitely easier than it is.
In regards to the interview, Steve 19, the interviewer was trying to get Tiger into a Tiger-vs-Phil discussion, and I think that irked Tiger and he would not go there at all.
That was one of the best Masters Sundays in a very long time, but they were both just too far back to start with. Heck, if Norman would have "folded" like people are saying Perry did, with a 71 on Sunday, he would have won the '96 Masters by 2 shots instead of losing it by 5 shots. Now that's folding for you.
I think Sunday's round really showed the difference between Tiger and Phil, though. Tiger was not playing great but was grinding away, and when he turned his game around on the back nine, you could see it in his whole demeanor - that he knew he had a chance to win. When he didn't win, he took no consolation with playing well. He didn't enjoy it.
With Phil, he was laser-sharp right from the start (well, except for his opening drive) and he was having FUN. Even after the round, when he had given 3 or 4 shots away on the back none, he was disappointed about not winning, but felt good about playing a great round of golf in crunch time. What he realistically needed was a PERFECT round of golf to actually win, and that's not exactly Phil's forte, is it?
