Newsday columnist Mark Herrmann asks a pertinent question: Just how boring would the 2007 and 2008 Masters had seemed if they had been won by Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson, rather than Zach Johnson and Trevor Immelman?
Herrmann responds to the widespread criticism of the last two Masters and their lack of excitement by making the point that the quality of the tournament and its entertainment value depends considerably (if not entirely) on the winner, and had either Tiger Woods or Phil Mickelson prevailed at Augusta the past two years, the media might have analyzed it differently.
This is not a new point. Dan Jenkins has often made it. This, from his book, "Fairway and Greens":
"I once worked for a managing editor at Sports Illustrated who was a great man in most ways, except that he tended to hold me personally responsible when Palmer or Nicklaus failed to win the Masters -- or any other major, for that matter. I'm determined that the closest I ever came to being sentenced to a penal colony was back in 1971 at Augusta when I committed the heinous crime of Charles Coody, and again in 1973 when i was guilty of Tommy Aaron."
-- John Strege