DD: Good points and well taken. If we were discussing any other tournament, I would pin this whole gauzy Masters treatment on the media. But you and I both know that Jim Nantz et al. don’t make a move, or utter a single sentence, that the Boys haven’t insisted upon and/or approved ahead of time. There is palpable pressure to present and discuss this stuff as unchanging and “traditional” — I’m just tired of hearing it, the same old stories over and over again. If there was an Amateur who asked out of the Crow’s Nest, or someone who actually felt free to discuss the fact that he doesn’t like the obligation to play in the par-3 tournament, then those subjects might be interesting. But even if those things did happen, they would squelched, resulting in a never-ending and highly predictable highlight reel — like having to listen to schmaltzy Christmas carols at the Mall, or the political propaganda that authoritarian governments pipe into public spaces: “Your Golfing Politburo Loves You… That’s why we present 56 minutes of golfing action out of every hour of programming.” There’s a difference between presenting history episodically, in context, and presenting it continually, as dogma. Augusta and the Masters tip heavily toward the latter. I think they are brand-building more than exalting golf. And I find it annoying.