2011 Master's

Golf can be boring to watch. Sometimes its nice to take a nap to on a Sunday afternoon, but not yesterday - final round of the Master's, about a dozen players in contention. The excitement peaked, until Schwartzel, the winner, took the air out of the bag by making 4 birdies in a row and winning by two. Good for him, but not good for TV drama. I don't watch golf to see some little known South African cruise away with the prize. I wanted drama. I wanted to see him at least have to make a 3-footer for all the marbles. Instead, he sinks a 20 footer for birdie, erasing all drama for the last shot of the tournament. As it was, Rory McIlroy hit the last shot of the tournament, finishing a round he will surely not be happy with. McIlroy went into Sunday with the lead, stumbled a bit early, and unraveled on the back nine. In the days before, the script had been written - McIlroy will replace Tiger Woods as the new phenom, and Tiger will have to do battle with this generation as he fades into his late 30s and 40s. The script was written, but it never really seemed like it would happen. I was rooting against McIlroy running away with it - why? personal jealousy of a 21yr old who will have made a career before 22? Maybe. It's not that I didn't want him to win, but I did want to see him suffer. Had he just cruised to victory unfazed, it wouldn't have seemed right - it would have belittled all of the players who have felt the pressure and not produced their best golf in a major. Sure, Tiger Woods did it - and that's why he is Tiger Woods. He was born and raised to produce those shots under pressure, but for some smiling kid from N. Ireland to do the same? Didn't feel right. I also don't like it when the headlines are written before the tournament is over. Most sportswriters had to think that McIlroy would probably fail, yet the headlines are that the young kid will make history as 2nd youngest winner - perhaps its unavoidable that the 8 second blurb would be to build up a possible McIlroy victory, even though the odds were probably against it. Did we want to see another superhero? Someone unfazed by the pressure? I didn't. I could cheer for him to win, but he would have had to suffer - to overcome some adversity. To show some nerves, and somehow recover. As it happened, he started confidently, but then lost all grip on a triple bogey. I wanted to see McIlroy face what I faced as a far far less distinguished athlete - inconsistency. I never did quite figure it out, and so the most I do now is write about competitive athletics, but I love to see the struggle to try to find perfection. When these pro golfers are on, they make the game seem effortless, and I can only imagine it feels effortless when they play well. I wanted to see human drama - the struggle with imperfection on Sunday - to bring McIlroy to my level? Is that part of the reason I was rooting for Tiger Woods? The man of an entirely hidden character? Why should I like the guy who took a fall in such an unsavory manner, and who I'm sure I'll never know beyond a few choice press releases and TV-ad smiles? I suppose because of what I mentioned - as a golfer, seeing him struggle to figure it out - how to unleash that pure golf stroke when it most matters. To be calm under adversity. To be sheltered in the shitstorm (and even one of his own making). To strive to perform your best when it matters the most. That's what I like about golf. About Sunday afternoon at the Masters. It's 'humanizing' which I fear is a euphemism for a tendency to want to bring the others down to a level where you can at least relate to them. I suppose now I can root for McIlroy knowing that he hasn't always had it easy. On that note, when is Sergio Garcia gonna show up on Sunday?