There is little that is conventional about Bubba Watson.
He is a 6ft 3in golfer with a thick, dark mop of shoulder-length hair, a blithe mood and a swing so eccentric that it might best be described as a thundering expression of his carefree nature.
Golf's purists have a tendency to purse their lips when they see some of the wild trajectories of his style, and he once boasted about never having received a lesson, but the ball explodes from his shots with an unkempt fury. Yet his victory in the Masters was in keeping with the game's current orthodoxy: no single player is dominating the majors.
Including the Masters, the last 14 majors have been won by different players, and 11 of them were triumphing in the elite events for the first time. This is not the longest stretch of multiple winners – there was a run of 18 majors between 1983 and 1987, and another of 15 from 1994 to 1998, that were won by a variety of golfers – and Watson has merely extended a streak that tells of the depth of talent in the sport. By becoming the 11th consecutive first-time winner, though, Watson did continue a run that is unsurpassed in history.
The era of Tiger Woods, when the rest of the field tended to be in awe of his oppressive brilliance, but also the aggressive, aloof nature of his competitive spirit, has given way to an array of talent. Woods remains a flitting presence, occasionally suggesting a return to the cold dominance of the past, then falling so short that he is reduced to cursing his own inadequacies.
He will never reign again, but others will. Since Padraig Harrington won the Open and the PGA Championship in 2008, the list of major winners is Angel Cabrera, Lucas Glover, Stewart Cink, Yang Yong-Eun, Phil Mickelson, Graeme McDowell, Louis Oosthuizen, Martin Kaymer, Charl Schwartzel, Rory McIlroy, Darren Clarke, Keegan Bradley, and now Watson.
The previous runs of consecutive different major winners, including 14 from 1966 to 1970, involved players who went on to establish dynasties of their own, with many of them winning in multiple majors. This current generation exhibits an air of tentativeness only in securing the four events that carry the greatest historical weight, because otherwise they perform with exuberance.
McIlroy, Watson, Keegan Bradley, Dustin Johnson and Martin Kaymer are the figureheads of this group of young, fearless golfers. Four of them have won majors, and they have overtaken the likes of Luke Donald, Lee Westwood, Justin Rose, Sergio Garcia and Adam Scott as the players expected to dominate, at least in terms of the leading championships. Westwood, again, could only leave Augusta with his regret at coming up short by such a narrow margin, finishing two shots behind Watson and Louis Oosthuizen before their play-off.
There seems to be a period of the game coming to terms with its changing nature. Power has emphatically replaced stealth as the dominant quality, but there is also a joyousness to the likes of McIlroy and Watson. They do not bring an exaggerated sense of their own worth to the game, or at least the conviction of Woods that their career is to be a calculating pursuit of Jack Nicklaus's distinction.
In 12 months, Woods will be the only winner of multiple majors under the age of 40, unless one of the younger generation can add a second prize from The Open, the US Open or the PGA Championship. McIlroy has the game to overwhelm others but is still coming to terms with how best to apply it. The echo of Woods still carries such menace that after winning the Arnold Palmer Invitational two weeks ago, he was installed as the favourite for Augusta, but his game was not sure enough to suppress the field.
"Tiger Woods was proficient [at the Masters] for so many years," said McDowell. "Phil [Mickelson] has been off and on. Those two guys have kind of taken a back seat and allowed the younger players to step up to the plate."
At a major, so many can have faith in their ability to win that the game has become gloriously and refreshingly unpredictable.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article