At first, I thought it was just me going through a funk, one probably caused by all that inclement spring weather that virtually – but not completely – kept me off Chicago courses. Usually by Masters time I've had a few 18-hole rounds in.
This time, nada.
That mindset seemed to translate to watching the Masters itself. I wasn't as excited about it as I usually am – and, believe me, it had nothing to do with Tiger Woods not seriously contending for the title and keeping alive my bold prediction in this space that he would achieve the Grand Slam this year. No, this was something else.
I figured it out in a conversation with a buddy who is every bit as avid about golf as I am. During our talk he referred to that just-completed first major championship at Augusta National as "a nothing Masters".
A nothing Masters. Somehow those two words are supposed to go together, but I knew what he meant.
Now, the Masters is still the Masters, but it's been lacking something the last two years. It has nothing to do with the champions. Zach Johnson and Trevor Immelman were deserving. No, the problem is within Augusta National itself. I can only conclude that its membership made some mistakes in transforming the course. In an effort to make the storied layout more in touch with the increased skill levels of the top players and the improved equipment, Augusta National lost some of its rich flavor.
The course was been lengthened by 520 yards and hundreds of pine trees planted since 1998. The second cut of rough that was also added was criticized by former champions Jack Nicklaus, Ben Crenshaw and Tom Watson, among others.
The course changes changed everything, as demonstrated by a telltale quote from no less than Woods himself.
"You don't really shoot low rounds [at Augusta] any more," said Woods days before he was beaten by Immelman.
"You've just got to plod along. It's playing more like a U.S. Open than it is a Masters."
The Masters shouldn't play like a U.S. Open. The Masters, year in and year out, had been the most exciting major because of its tradition of dramatic finishes. That drama is dissipating.
Traditionally, the U.S. Open is built on the tough setups of its courses. That's the flavor of the U.S. Open. It's not the flavor of the Masters, where Johnson's 1-over-par was good enough to win two years ago and Immelman went basically unchallenged down the stretch despite shooting a 75 in the final round.
My first Masters was in 1986, when Nicklaus put on one of greatest charges of his illustrious career to win his last title.
The Masters was known for "starting on the back nine on Sunday" in those days. The holes lended to that description. Nos. 13 and 15 were par-5s that offered eagle opportunities. They aren't really that way anymore. One of Nicklaus' most dramatic shots in '86 was his approach to the 17th green that set up the last birdie he needed to win. If he was faced with the same approach now, he couldn't pull it off. The angle he took to the green then is now blocked by some of those new pine trees.
The TV highlights shows following past Masters focused on the great shots. This year's focused on the putts Woods missed down the stretch. On Saturday, there were only seven rounds in the 60s, on Sunday just two. The last round took five hours, causing a shortening of the traditional green jacket presentation ceremony for television viewers.
That's not how it should be at the Masters. The Masters was fun, a place where the best players had to go for it to be rewarded. Well, the Masters isn't fun anymore.
Said Jim Furyk in Golf World: "It's a pretty good test of golf. It used to be a lot of fun to play. It's not fun anymore, but it definitely got a lot more difficult. I don't think we have [heard the roars from the gallery that used to be commonplace] for the last few years. It's obviously a decision they [tournament officials] made. It's their event, a different golf course, and there's a different way to approach it now."
I don't know if the Masters can ever got back to the way it was. That's just the way it is. But I prefer to remember some of the great duels of the past – the Nicklaus-Johnny Miller-Tom Weiskopf nailbiter in 1975, Fuzzy Zoeller's playoff win in 1979, Larry Mize's chip-in in the 1987 playoff with Greg Norman and Seve Ballesteros, the misses by Scott Hoch and Ray Floyd that gave Nick Faldo back-to-back titles in playoffs in 1989 and 1990 and Phil Mickelson's putt on the 18th that thwarted Ernie Els in 2004.
These last two Masters with the tougher course? Well – for whatever reason – they just don't match up.
SOME FINAL thoughts:
• Tiger Woods' handling of his knee problem was exemplary. You know he had to hampered competitively when the surgery came so quickly after tournament. Woods, and no one else in his entourage, made any mention of his ailment until after the tournament was over.
• Gary Player's 51st Masters should be his last. He broke Arnold Palmer's record for longevity, and that's significant. To declare he'll be back just because he broke 80 in the second round, though, isn't enough. He's had a great career. He should join the other former winners in more of a ceremonial capacity.
• Most touching moment of the tournament was not Immelman's victory speech. It was Brandt Snedeker breaking down in tears after his final-round collapse. That, more than anything, will be remembered by the closest followers of this Masters. He's a good player now, but he'll be a great one.
• Lost in the usual hoopla was a fine performance by 1988 champion Sandy Lyle of Scotland – at least for two rounds. Lyle, a 50-year-old Champions Tour player, made the cut after round of 72-75.
• Finally, a question: Who's now the best player to have not won a major? It's either Stewart Cink or K.J. Choi. I'm not sure which one.