Lonard was asked was asked if the Masters was on his radar screen after the 18th hole yesterday and siad,
"I've never made a cut at Augusta, so it doesn't really worry me whether I'm going or not," Lonard said.

I realize this was after a disappointing loss, but I thought these guys lived to play Augusta, maybe there is something more to his comment, but I'll go and play in replace of him if he doesn't really care.

Sour grapes. He realizes he'll never win there, so he's pissy.

-mini

hmmm..maybe he doesn't revere it as much as he will the Aussie Open or British Open. Some like the Masters....some don't..Trevino for example was never a fan of the Masters..didn't suit his game..low baller and not that long..

In fairness to Lonard, I'd bet there are a lot of players who feel the same way when you get past the majesty of the course.

The list of potential winners is now pitifully small thanks to the changes to the course. Tom Watson has already said that he would not have been able to win, in his prime, if the course had been playing then as it does now.

Easy to be less than enthusiastic when you can't compete there with your best game because of the obsesion with length.

Who's Peter Lonard?

It seems that what Peter Lonard said was a bit contradictory: "I've never made a cut at Augusta, so it doesn't really worry me whether I'm going or not," Lonard said prior to finding out he was exempt. "But I would like another go before I die."

Looks like he's got a lot of love for Augusta; but maybe the disappointments of missing a short putt on 17 and hitting a poor drive on 18 led to the petulant response?

Trevino wasn't treated well there, and basically didn't play there during the best years of his career.

Most people love Augusta...but a few don't. What's the big deal?

at least hes honest haha!!
Self Realisation is a great thing when your a tour player.

I have to disagree with these comments. Look at last years winner, Johnson never went for a par 5 in two, is not known to be long, nor to be a high ball hitter, yet he won. I feel there is just as long a list of potential winners as any other week. Now I will say guys like Lonard are at a bit of a disadvantage because of their piercing low trajectory, so the ball does not stop as quickly.

'
If Zack Johnson, Weir, Mickelson can win at Augusta..so can Watson at his prime. He was long and had a fantastic short game.

Yes it is long and favors the longer hitter, but if my memory serves me correctly aside from Johnson, Dimarco and Tim Clark have been contending there for the last couple of years before Zac won. Neither of them would be mistaken as longer hitters. In fact Dimarco has a really good record at Augusta, and probably should have won the year he lost to Tiger in a playoff. If anything Agusta favors a player who can work the ball into the right spots on the greens and putt. For that matter outside of Riveria what course in the PGA tour rotation isn't long now?

Look who got an invite to the Masters today by virtue of moving into the OWGR top 50:

Lonard's five-foot putt on 18th at Zurich Classic clinches Masters invite

Point taken about the above players, but it's hard to support an argument that the 'stable' of possible winers isn't vastly reduced from a decade (or more) ago owing to the extra length. Several shorter hitters have played well (and won) in recent times, but the uppermost parts of the leaderboard are somewhat top-heavy with' longer' or 'long' hitters of the ball. It's easy to forget, but a great deal of lengthening has happened since even Mike Weir's victory there too.

As always, a good short game or a hot putter can be a good tool for making up the ground that's lacking in the length department, and it's of course possible for anyone to have a hot week. Honestly though, is Zach Johnson going to win four or five Masters titles? Or Weir? Woods is at four already, and players like Mickelson, Singh, Goosen and Els are more likely to be consistently solid performers (and potential winners) due to the fact they hit the ball long and high which is increasingly a necessity at Augusta these days.

In the past, length was an advantage to win at Augusta. Now, it's almost a prerequisite.

The Watson quote was precisely that. The views of the man himself. Interestingly, Nick Faldo - a three time winner - has expressed doubts that he could achieve those three wins had the course played proportionately as long as it does now.

I'm an outspoken critic of the changes at Augusta, but my take on it is this: The 'old' Augusta National allowed winners like Weir (a short hitter with a great short game); Faldo (a relatively short hitter but a precise iron player) ; Jose Maria Olazabal (a low ball hitter with a stellar short game) ; Langer (a supreme iron player and short driver) ; Seve (a swashbuckling and occasionally wayward hitter with a mercurial short game and putter) and Crenshaw (an average ballstriker with a great short game and God-like putting touch). Sadly, a player like those listed above stands a vastly decreased chance of winning even one Masters title. A stellar week may win one, but two or three? Highly unlikely nowadays.

I think Augusta (and most other places if we're honest) have dropped the ball with a lot of the 'Tigerproofing' strategies of recent years. What they've done is precisely the opposite of Tigerproofing in that they've made the course playable only for the very longest hitters. Yes, the winning scores have been protected (although I've never understood why -20 is considered unacceptable as a winning score in a professional tournament) but all that actually happens is that the longer hitters are given a greater chance of being victorious - albeit with a higher winning total.

Holes like the 2nd, the 8th, the 11th, 13th 15th, 17th and 18th give a disproportionate advantage to someone who can carry the ball a long way. And, from a purely aesthetic point of view, holes like #7 have been changed for the worse in my opinion and are now afflicted with driving areas and/or greens that are unsuited to the shots that are now being asked of the players.

Due to the fact that Augusta comes around every year at the same venue, there's a natural tendency amongst golfers around the world to consider it almost 'their' course due to their familiarity with the place - and there are many people who don't like the changes at Augusta for a variety of reasons. I agree that some modification was required to keep pace with the advances in technology and to 'restore' some of the holes to their former standing, but to my mind the modifications have gone too far. Augusta has been made too long and too difficult and the nature of the course and the potential stable of winners has been changed enormously.

I think it's a great shame - if for no other reason than we're unlikely to see another Jack Nicklaus / 1986 finish.

Well said. I was in no means saying that it does not favor the long hitter, just pointing out that there are contenders that are not long hitters. Thanks for reminding me about Weir, I guess I forgot him in the short hitters bunch.

I believe it was last year when the course was playing hard and the greens were crazy hard and fast, numerous players commented on the length of the course. Their comments were not that it was too long, but more to a lot of the greens at Augusta were not designed to be receptive to longer iron approach shots thus making it even more difficult. There were no changes to the greens when the length was added.

On a side note, I remember when Tiger beat Dimarco a few years ago in the play off he hit a 3wd off hole 18 and Dimarco hit his driver and Tiger was 40 yards ahead of Dimarco. This was also under wet conditions that happened that year.

Langer, low ball, as low as Trevino if not lower, and certainly not long, yet he managed to win against Seve, Norman, Faldo, all in their prime. Trevino should have tried harder.

FYI...Mike's driving average was 300 yards that week. Yup...sign me up for that short hitters group! I'll take 300 average evey day of the week. Stellar putting, also played a big role in Mike's victory. Mike is "sneaky long".

the problem with Augusta now as I understand it is with the extra length player's are hitting the clubs Jones intended and the slopes on the greens have always been maintained as best as possible to the original Jones design. The problem is that when Jones designed the course the greens were rolling at 7-8 and not the 12-15 they are now

Knowing Lonard and his sense of humour I'd say we've taken the tone of this quote out of context.

Admittedly I didn't see the interview but I'd hazard a guess to say it was said jokingly. He is that sort of guy.

Thinking about it, you may very well be right there. Lonard does have a bit of a dry aussie wit.

Joking or not, I'll still bet there are more than a few players who, after the thrill of playing and seeing Augusta fades, are not overly optimistic about their chances of winning and who become less enchanted with the course and the tournament over time though.

I have to disagree with that, I think people read into the changes made at Augusta a little too much. I remember reading the Sports Illustrated Masters Preview last year, and one the cartoons showed a tombstone at Augusta with the names of "short hitters" who supposedly didn't have a chance to win The Masters anymore (Luke Donald is the one name I remember being on there) ...Then Zach Johnson wins. It's obviously one of the most revered golf courses in the world, as well as one the most difficult, obviously, but golf is golf, and there are players who just find ways to get it done.