Trevor Immelman won by three shots despite a final-round 75 at the Masters. (Getty Images)

Walkmans? Seriously? When's the last time you saw someone with a Walkman?

Auclair

Anyway, let's get to the real business at hand. In case you couldn't tell, I'm writing this on a plane as I whisk away from the year's first major.

There's just something about this Masters that's not sitting well with me. It's the kind of feeling I imagine one would get from eating a pimento cheese sandwich, though I can't speak from experience. I'd rather starve, thank you.

I have no problem whatsoever with Trevor Immelman winning his first major, so let's get that out of the way right off the bat. Ditto for Brandt Snedeker and his tie for third.

Quite frankly, the 72nd Masters showcased the young talent that does in fact exist on the PGA TOUR even if people are only willing to look at No. 1.

My problem with the Masters is in regard to the final round. For my taste, it was just kinda blah. Was Mother Nature a factor? Of course. How else do you explain the fact that not one player in the top five broke par on Sunday?

But guys, give us some action on the back nine! The back nine at Augusta National is supposed to be the most exciting nine holes in all of golf. On Sunday, they were just nine holes of golf.

I'm not a glutton for punishment. I don't enjoy the misfortune of others, such as Steve Flesch and his double-bogey to fall out of contention on No. 12 -- the famous par 3 and middle child of the three-hole stretch known as Amen Corner.

And Snedeker? I wasn't in love with his decision to go for all the blue chips on No. 13, trying to reach the green in two.

It's true what they say about golfers and their short memories. Snedeker splashed the same shot a day earlier, yet still took a rip at it on Sunday. It's a respectable thing to do.

Brandt Snedeker made nine bogeys on the final day. (Getty Images)

Unless you're named Tiger or Phil, how many chances are you going to have to win a Green Jacket? But, I also look at Zach Johnson in 2007 and Immelman this past week.

You've got to pick your spots.

Eagles are wonderful, but what's wrong with laying up, taking the water pretty much out of play and setting up a reasonable chance at birdie? It worked for Johnson in 2007 and may have been the turning point on Sunday for Immelman.

When the back nine at Augusta National doesn't lend itself to eagle chances on Nos. 13 and 15, or birdies at worst, the excitement factor dwindles, hence no Augusta roars, hence minimizing the number of butterflies floating about the leader's stomach.

The logic behind the decisions made by the powers that be at Augusta National to lengthen the course in an effort to combat technology is understandable. But, when it takes the fun out of the tournament is it what has it truly accomplished.

Recently, the back nine at Augusta National has turned into a NASCAR race at Talladega. People watch while awaiting the inevitable Big One. What's wrong with eagles and birdies?

All of the majors are unique, but the Masters is starting to look a lot like the U.S. Open, which puts a premium on pars. We already know we're going to get that in the second major of the year, so why must we see it in the first major of the year?

There's no suggestion box at Augusta National, but here's to hoping that chairman Billy Payne -- who's done a fine job in every aspect of his position -- finds it in his heart to bring back the thrills we've come to expect from the final round of the Masters.

We're making our initial descent into Boston, which means it's time to turn off the laptop.

And the Walkman.