Hack: Still, can you imagine if Tiger or Phil made four birdies at the end to win? It would be huge. It's so unfair.
Shipnuck: It was his first major, the first time he contended and his first win in the U.S. He had no body of work here.
Garrity: Even when John Daly won the '91 PGA, he burst onto the scene on Saturday, and halfway through his final round he was already a legend—the borrowed caddie, the ninth alternate. His story was told for two full days. We didn't notice Schwartzel until the last two holes.
Anonymous Pro: Charl isn't a flashy player. He's more like Zach Johnson or Mike Weir—a surprise winner. Augusta loves the popular winner, the great players of history like Phil and Tiger. Charl is Ben Curtis or Shaun Micheel. They won majors because they were the last men standing, but people didn't know who they were. The pressure of validating a Masters victory is going to be the tough part. That's why I don't see him repeating.
Van Sickle: Even though he played great, there was luck involved. Those shots he holed at 1 and 3 amounted to a four-shot swing, and even then he had to birdie the last four. Was it one of the best Masters since Jack in '86?
Hack: I don't know if it was one of the best. How do you put it next to 1997 or 2001 or '04?
Shipnuck: Maybe I've watched the video too often, but to me it was an amazing day of golf. The drama was unbelievable. Don't forget, Rory McIlroy was a huge story, and even though he was still leading at the turn, he was completely forgotten by the 13th hole.
Anonymous Pro: It had everything except a winner with marquee value.
Bamberger: Exactly. That's why, for me, last year's Masters was only very good. At the end of the day, it's who won, and the guy who won isn't somebody we were invested in.
Hack: It was a great couple of hours on Sunday, but was it better than Faldo versus Norman? Better than Tiger going for the Tiger Slam with Mickelson and David Duval nipping at his heels? Better than the social significance of Tiger's win in '97?