The Masters is my favorite tournament. On Monday, a friend and I were e-mailing about Tiger's victory. The friend said Tiger was lucky and DiMarco should have won. Given his lead going into the third round, it looked like DiMarco would win, and I would have been very happy if he had won. But, to claim that Tiger's victory was luck struck me as being unfair and odd. First, unfair because Tiger had to come back from as much as a seven-stroke deficit. He pulled it off on Sunday morning to even take the lead going into the final round.
And, odd because Tiger's chip shot on the 16th green was fabulous. First, Tiger had to read the green, hit the ball, and then it had to drop in. I don't know how many players (pro or amateur) could have made that shot. Sure there is a modicum of luck that it went in, but it isn't like Tiger skulled it or hit it fat, and the ball happened to land where it did, so it would take the break, and then go in. Tiger had the imagination and skill to pull that shot off.
Besides, isn't some luck (serendipity, providence, or whatever you want to call it) always a factor in a person's success? I think even Donald Trump would say luck is some part of his success mixed with his vision, hard work, persistence, and focus on achieveing his goals.
To have luck, you have to put yourself in a position to receive it. So, maybe it's luck Tiger's chip went in, but he put himself in a position to chip it in. And, if you have a long putt, at least you hit the ball on the green, read the break, and then stroked the ball well, so it went into the hole.
I'm not ever one to kick a gift horse in the mouth. I've had my breaks on the golf course for which I'm grateful and will admit to. But, to chalk Tiger's victory to just luck is bad form and, a frightening thought, perhaps even a method of attracting a share of one's own bad luck.