"The more Phil talks about Masters buildup, the more golf will become like tennis."

I make a guest appearance on this week's SI/golf.com/Golf Mag/Time Inc./People Magazine mass market paperback to discuss all things golf.

I'd like your thoughts on the content of this exchange, starting with my comment:

It's also fascinating how the win here, the Match Play and everything else are clearly secondary to him behind The Masters. He's just repeated at Riviera, which used to mean something, and all he can talk about is how it was great to be in contention to prepare him for Augusta. And the Match Play? He says it's like six final rounds, which is great preparation for The Masters. I don't ever remember someone winning here and viewing it that way. Got to love his focus on the big prize, but it's not like this is a silly season event.

Van Sickle: That's more of the Tiger Effect. Only the majors matter to him, and therefore to the rest of us. The Hogan history at Riviera, and also at Colonial, has very little meaning for the players two generations removed. Too bad.

Evans: The more Phil talks about Masters buildup, the more golf will become like tennis. Can anybody remember watching tennis outside of the Grand Slams? Golf is headed in that direction, despite reports to the contrary from the Golf Channel.

Now I may be misinterpreting Phil's reaction because he gets very strange in the media interview room depending on who asks a question. And I will say his caddy Jim "Bones" Mackay was visibly thrilled by the win and made sure to grab the flag on 18 for his collection of winning 18th hole flags.

But what do you think of what Van Sickle and Evans had to say about the bigger picture issue of majors overshadowing tour events?