Tour Confidential Q & A - Masters Edition

Admit it, you've been checking back on an hourly basis to see when I'd get to our most popular weekly feature... also our only weekly feature.  I'm going to tweak the format a bit to involve more of the SI/Golf Magazine writers.  Let's see how that works out, shall we?

1. Bubba Watson shot 69 on Sunday to win his second Masters in three years. How does Watson compare to other repeat Masters champions and how many more green jackets do you think he will win?

Gary Van Sickle: This already makes two more Masters than I thought Bubba would snag. He's long and hits it high and works that cut -- his game is perfect for this course if he can get his putter working. I'll be surprised if he doesn't win at least one more now

Cameron Morfit: I think he might end up with four of them. The combination of this big, broad-shouldered course and Bubba's titanic tee shots and imaginative shotmaking -- it's a perfect match, really. 

Eamon Lynch: The most relevant comparison to another multiple Masters winner is with Seve Ballesteros. Like Seve, Bubba can manufacture shots that don't even occur to others, and he's an erratic character who is often his own worst enemy.

Josh Sens: Honey, he shrunk the course, just as Nicklaus and Woods did before him. Next up, the Bubba-proofing of Augusta National, with thick forests of loblollies added to the left side of every fairway. I see him winning one or two more. 

Mark Godich: He will be a contender at Augusta for the next decade or so because of his length off the tee and the trajectory of his approach shots. All he has to do is keep his head on straight. That said, I believe he learned a lot on how to handle things off the course from the win in 2012, so put him down for another green jacket, maybe two.

Michael Bamberger: Well, he's an amazing golf talent, in the Seve tradition -- in the European tradition, really. Play the course, shape the shot, leave the mechanics on the range. No reason he can't win another. And if he wins a third, we'll have to consider the possibility of a fourth.

My Take:  This is the trap we all fall into.  The guys win when all cylinders of their games are firing, and under those conditions they don't look like they can possibly lose.  I'll at least try to be consistent and say zero, since I never thought he'd win a major of any kind.  Admittedly when on his game, he's making the course look like pitch and putts the way Jack did in the mid-60's and Tiger did in '97.  

The comparisons to Seve absolutely baffle me.  Seve was a short-hitter for his day, with a magical short game and unparalleled intensity.  Bubba is a bomber with an inconsistent short game, though he is a throwback in the sense that he's self-taught and continues to shape every shot.  But Bubba's intensity comes across as twitchiness, and besides, he never wears navy on Sunday.

2. How do you define the term “Bubba Golf”?

VAN SICKLE: Bubba golf is combining smashmouth golf with shotmaking and what passes for Southern charm. 

JOSH SENS: If you mean Bill "Bubba" Clinton, it's yell fore, take six and write down five. If you mean Bubba Watson, it's aim toward right-field foul pole, twitch like you're going to swing and miss, then hit one out of the park.

JEFF RITTER: Button your shirt all the way to the collar, carry a pink driver and bust it 330 yards with a homemade swing that's never seen a lesson.

JOE PASSOV: "Bubba golf" is free-wheeling, nothing else resembling it, anything can happen -- and usually does -- golf. His wedge at the 2012 Masters, the 4-iron rocket at Doral's 72nd hole a couple of years ago, his boomerang driver off the deck approach to the 18th at Kapalua -- it's magical. It's also rabbit ears, blame his caddie, meltdowns from nowhere stuff, too. Regardless, Bubba golf is ALWAYS entertaining.

My Take:  They covered the smashmouth golf adequately, but only Passov touched on the darker side.  Though, to be fair, it does seem that Bubba has settle in and found some happiness, and is there anyone that doesn't want to watch what comes next?

3. Jordan Spieth made a serious bid to become the youngest-ever Masters champ and the first first-timer to win at Augusta since Fuzzy Zoeller in 1979 before falling to Watson in the final. What makes Spieth a special player and what do you think he learns from this week?

VAN SICKLE: Spieth now knows he can win a Masters, definitively, or any other major. That's knows, not thinks. He'll realize he let his emotions get in the way on the final nine when he studies the replay, which he will. He will be America's next great player.

LYNCH: Having the 54-hole lead and almost winning the Masters is invaluable experience to acquire at age 20, and Spieth seems well equipped to contend on any major stage going forward. But his emotional reactions to poor shots laid bare the tedious cliche repeated ad nauseam by the TV announcers that he has an old head on young shoulders. His youth and inexperience was evident. It's understandable. When he surmounts that, he might have the brightest future in the game.

PASSOV: A combination of execution and attitude makes Spieth special. He has unusual maturity, yet you can tell from the club-slam at 10, the eye rolls, the one-handed and no-handed finishes, that he's a fiery, passionate competitor.

RITTER: When I watch Spieth play golf or listen to him in the interview room, I forget that he's only 20, so I'll say it's his maturity. He has the talent and attitude to thrive on Tour, and he'll learn a lot from Sunday's tough stretch of holes around the turn that cost him this tournament. He'll get his first major soon -- maybe as soon as Pinehurst.

My Take:  I've thought highly of Spieth since his amateur career, but it's better to avoid the Kool Aid.  He's done great things since coming out on Tour, but he's been far better at getting into position than in closing the deal, showing consistent problems in finishing.  It's really hard to win out there, and let's let his career play out before we add him to golf's Mount Rushmore.

Secondarily, I've been surprised by how little press his club slam has received.  Yes he's young and I'm not a perfect messenger for this, but it wasn't his finest moment.

4. Which performance was the most disappointing: Phil Mickelson, Rory McIlroy, Adam Scott, Dustin Johnson or someone else?

LYNCH: Scott. He made a statement on Thursday but then faded away with barely a whimper.

VAN SICKLE: Mickelson was disappointing because he botched so many short-game shots. That's supposed to be his specialty. It is his specialty.

PASSOV:  Adam Scott disappointed me most. He got off to a fast start, then inexplicably stalled. To me, he's the man right now, and his repeated front-nine failures at Augusta this week were head-scratching.  

BAMBERGER: I am going to save my feelings of disappointment for others who need it more than that foursome. Ed Sneed comes to mind.

GODICH:  Dustin Johnson. He's turning 30 in June. He's got too much talent to not win a major, and if we're still asking this question in a couple of years, DJ is going to start drawing comparisons to Lee Westwood.

MORFIT: I've got to go with McIlroy.  He said himself that he was useless on the par-5s, and he did not putt well at all. Losing to the non-competing marker Saturday was just salt in the wound. 

My Take:  To paraphrase Tolstoy, they all disappointed in different ways.  Except Dustin, because anyone expecting the mental discipline necessary to win a major for him has been covering curling that last five years.

I expect Phil to be inconsistent at this stage of his career, but his short game misfires were absolutely baffling.  And isn't that the case for Phil at Pinehurst, or that and karma?

Adam Scott wasted a good comeback from a bad start on Friday, but his issue is putting.  And if you're a horrible putter with the broomstick, where do you go from there?

Rory seems a bit of a mess to me, not a 2013 mess but going nowhere useful all the same.  His putter is wildly inconsistent, and there's far too many loose shots.  But as good a she can be at times, his big wins have always been on soft tracks, and Augusta was anything but soft this week.

5. Six senior players made the cut at the Masters, along with 48-year-old Jose Maria Olazabal. Does this end the argument that the power brokers made Augusta National too long and too tough after the most recent design changes?

PASSOV: Well, yes. I can see that when the course is wet, the old guys will struggle with the length. Firm and fast in the sunshine this year, everybody was in the game.

VAN SICKLE: The course played firm and fast this week despite Monday's downpour. That allowed the shorter hitters, including the seniors, to show their skills. The firmer the greens, the more the local knowledge and shotmaking skills of the seniors gives them an edge. Make the course long, wet and soft and I'm not betting on Larry Mize.

LYNCH: More seniors made the cut because more seniors play here, all of them with significant experience on the course.

GODICH: The strong play by the senior citizens shows how significant experience is at the Masters. It also speaks to what a special place Augusta National is. Age doesn't matter; these guys get inspired when they set foot on the grounds.

My Take:  I think the comments about the firmness of the course are a factor, as to the obvious capabilities of those involved.  But what no one mentions is how ridiculously easy it is to make the cut at the Masters, if you're lucky enough to have a tee time.  There's only ninety-something players in the entire field, and when you deduct the amateurs, the real old timers (Craig Stadler 82-77, Ben Crenshaw 83-85, for instance) and those who qualified by virtue of accomplishments during the Little Ice Age (anyone out there have Tim Clark or Y.E. Yang on their fantasy rosters), you have to beat all of five guys to hang around for the weekend.  

6. Neither Tiger Woods nor Phil Mickelson played the weekend at the Masters for the first time since 1994. Did you miss them?

VAN SICKLE: Real golf fans didn't miss them. Casual golf fans -- and those who are Phil fans or Tiger fans

but not really golf fans -- missed them.

MORFIT: Terribly. Tiger's absence was like a phantom limb. And then for Phil to miss the cut -- geez. Oh, well. There's always next year.

LYNCH: The vibe was very different all week. The electricity just wasn't there. This Masters provided a partial glimpse of a world to come when neither Tiger nor Phil are factors, and it wasn't pretty.

SENS: Anyone who says this Masters was better without Woods and Mickelson on the weekend should see my shrink, the one I've been seeing to help me overcome my Lee Westwood problem.

BAMBERGER: I did, much more than I could have guessed. I missed Tiger's smoldering intensity. Phil was different, he played hard and missed a cut. It happens. But I was surprised to find I missed T. Woods.

My Take:  Of course.  Next question.  Oh, there is no next question...see you guys next week.