# Should the Masters be a Major



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 2, 2016)

Simple question 

Should it be a major 

For me I will say no 

My reasons - 

Same venue year in year out and one that we pretty much can't play on 

Too exclusive with too small a field and many of the current players missing out 

Every winner is invited back regardless of current standard


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Apr 2, 2016)

Difficult one, history, tradition, how the players feel about it, all say yes, because so much of the game is about all that.

Personally the only 2 Majors to me are The Open and The US Open.

So I go with No.


----------



## Dave3498 (Apr 2, 2016)

I agree with everything you say, but you are talking about completely re-hashing the record books, negating grand-slams etc.  On top of that, it is an amazing spectacle on a course that we followers get to know very well.  It's unique and I love it, so I voted for it to stay.  Sorry.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Apr 2, 2016)

Yes.

1. How do you replace it as one of the majors? No matter how much spin, advertising, you cant just make a new one up.

2. It is at the same venue every year, but that is one of its attractions, keen golfers know every hole. Memories of Sandy's bunker shot, Tiger's chip, Faldo's dismembering of the great white shark on the final day, we could go on and on.

3. Each major has its own USP - THE open (links course), Masters (same course, rich history), US Open - always target par etc.

4. Its reasonably possible to compare the players of yesteryear.OK, theyve pushed tees back etc, but the older players werent as long, and mainly playing into the same greens as from 50-60 years ago.

If it went, you would miss it so much, believe me.

My one gripe is that "patrons" get most of the tickets and golf fans from other continents have to pay through the nose to get them. Tickets should be more widely available.

Sorry Phil - your wrong, an idiot and a bigot. :rofl:

Only joking, obviously.:thup:


----------



## Val (Apr 2, 2016)

Yes keep as a major but I think it shouldn't be an invitational, a full qualifying criteria for everyone.


----------



## Ethan (Apr 2, 2016)

The majors as we now understand them were so nominated by acclamation in 1960, after Arnold Palmer won the Masters and US open and was en route to The Open when he chatted to a journalist, and remarked that if he won The Open and the PGA, it would be a professional equivalent to Bobby Jones Impregnable Quadrilateral of the 2 Opens and 2 amateurs in 1930. So the modern definition of majors was born. If Palmer hadn't won one of those two majors before, the conversation might never have taken place. 

In between, other events, including The Western Open were considered major events. 

I don't see what the modern definition couldn't evolve and the PGA Tour has been doing its best to make The Players one. 

The Masters is a bit of an anachronism. The mega-privileged club with a rather bad record on race and gender politics, and for many years very very US centric. In the 1980s, sometimes only the winner of the European Tour Order of Merit was invited, while the US pro who won the No Name Classic on the PGA Tour got in automatically. The winners before that time played against much thinner fields, so I think a few got majors on their record that they might not have got had they been playing the best world players too. Many leading players in the post-war period never or seldom got an invite to The Masters. Same for the PGA Championship.


----------



## Break90 (Apr 2, 2016)

I'm looking at this from a relatively modern perspective, post 1990 let's say.

Also looking at it from a purely golf point of view, so not taking into account factors like racial equality, sexual equality etc, although not saying that they are not valid discussions outside of this poll/thread.

Purely from a golfing opinion, I think The Masters is absolutely worthy of being a Major. 

The iconic location, the fact that it's the first major of the year, the traditions, the fact that you know the course from seeing it on tv year each year and the memories of previous years, all these things make it my one 'must watch' tournament of the year. I watch all the other majors, Ryder cup and most televised golf, but The Masters is an absolute given.

For me, our game is all about traditions, and The Masters is perfectly aligned to that ethos.


----------



## Tongo (Apr 2, 2016)

Yes. 

By what criteria is a tournament judged before it becomes a major? There arent any real criteria. These things happens slowly. When the Open began the idea of a 'major' was way, way in the future. 

I like the fact its a select field. Makes it a bit different from the two Opens. And it makes playing in the event a bit more of an accomplishment. Remember when Stephen Gallacher posted a piccie of his invite on Twitter? It meant something to him. 

And i like the fact that Augusta cherishes its champions. (Past champions get to play in the other three majors anyhow. Maybe not for life but certainly for a decent period of time)


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Apr 2, 2016)

I think that it would benefit from having formal qualification criteria rather than being an invitational.

I like the idea of ex winners having exemptions, but its gone too far and too many good players are not invited, so maybe limiting the exemptions to winners from the past 15 years,

 All players like Woosnam & Lyle  are doing is blocking some up & coming younger players, Let the oldies play in the pro am or the par 3, but lets get The Masters a bit more up to date

These players should not be there

Tom Watson, Weir, Vijay, Langer, Mize, Omeara, Woosnam & Lyle

Immelman is a past winner, but has done rock all since

The only exception is Fred Couples who, I bet will still be competitive and in contention if his back holds out


----------



## Tongo (Apr 2, 2016)

PhilTheFragger said:



			I think that it would benefit from having formal qualification criteria rather than being an invitational.

I like the idea of ex winners having exemptions, but its gone too far and too many good players are not invited, so maybe limiting the exemptions to winners from the past 15 years,

 All players like Woosnam & Lyle  are doing is blocking some up & coming younger players, Let the oldies play in the pro am or the par 3, but lets get The Masters a bit more up to date

These players should not be there

Tom Watson, Weir, Vijay, Langer, Mize, Omeara, Woosnam & Lyle

Immelman is a past winner, but has done rock all since

The only exception is Fred Couples who, I bet will still be competitive and in contention if his back holds out 

Click to expand...

And yet if majors were so harsh on past champs there's a fair chance that Watson would not have played the Open in 2009. And what a shame that would have been had we not had all that drama. 

Vijay's also been playing reasonably well on the PGA Tour so far this year.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 2, 2016)

Liverbirdie said:



			Yes.

1. How do you replace it as one of the majors? No matter how much spin, advertising, you cant just make a new one up.

2. It is at the same venue every year, but that is one of its attractions, keen golfers know every hole. Memories of Sandy's bunker shot, Tiger's chip, Faldo's dismembering of the great white shark on the final day, we could go on and on.

3. Each major has its own USP - THE open (links course), Masters (same course, rich history), US Open - always target par etc.

4. Its reasonably possible to compare the players of yesteryear.OK, theyve pushed tees back etc, but the older players werent as long, and mainly playing into the same greens as from 50-60 years ago.

If it went, you would miss it so much, believe me.

My one gripe is that "patrons" get most of the tickets and golf fans from other continents have to pay through the nose to get them. Tickets should be more widely available.

Sorry Phil - your wrong, an idiot and a bigot. :rofl:

Only joking, obviously.:thup:
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely sums up my view :thup: - including the 'humour' :rofl:

It's a 'Major' because it's a major tournament, partly BECAUSE it's an exclusive event. The only thing I might see changing is the automatic inclusion of previous winners - perhaps reduce it to a 20 or 25 year exemption (plus 'Special Invites' for the first group).


----------



## Dan2501 (Apr 2, 2016)

One of THE iconic tournaments. Definitely should be a major. Has far too much history to not be a Major.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 2, 2016)

No
My only gripe with the Masters is that it's Invite Only and who they invite
Even the World number 1 has to be officially invited, if Jordan pee'd off the Masters committee enough they're within their rights to not invite him back...
Ex winners, up to a point, I can live with that. But when these ex winners are only there because they have won then its wrong in my opinion.
Sandy Lyle, Larry Mize, Mike Weir, Trevor Immelman, Mark  O'Meara, Ian Woosnam - all eligible but shouldn't really be there if it's a Major, there's a few other names as well....
My opinion - which ain't gonna change anything and ain't gonna stop me watching it either!&#128077;


----------



## Spear-Chucker (Apr 2, 2016)

It always reminds me of those silly season events being so selective and is essentially a theme park. If someone suggested it tomorrow it would never achieve major status due to its record on equal opportunities for female members and outright racism - historical but try telling that to those who've missed out in relatively recent memory. It is however and that won't change now. In short, no.


----------



## Tongo (Apr 2, 2016)

Spear-Chucker said:



			It always reminds me of those silly season events being so selective and is essentially a theme park. If someone suggested it tomorrow it would never achieve major status due to its record on *equal opportunities for female members* and outright racism - historical but try telling that to those who've missed out in relatively recent memory. It is however and that won't change now. In short, no.
		
Click to expand...

What, like those esteemed Open Championship venues?


----------



## Crow (Apr 2, 2016)

No, it's rubbish.

Golf doesn't get more up itself than The Masters.


----------



## Duckster (Apr 2, 2016)

PhilTheFragger said:



			I think that it would benefit from having formal qualification criteria rather than being an invitational.

I like the idea of ex winners having exemptions, but its gone too far and too many good players are not invited, so maybe limiting the exemptions to winners from the past 15 years,

 All players like Woosnam & Lyle  are doing is blocking some up & coming younger players, Let the oldies play in the pro am or the par 3, but lets get The Masters a bit more up to date

These players should not be there

Tom Watson, Weir, Vijay, Langer, Mize, Omeara, Woosnam & Lyle

Immelman is a past winner, but has done rock all since

The only exception is Fred Couples who, I bet will still be competitive and in contention if his back holds out 

Click to expand...

I quite like the 15 year suggestion.  However that would mean Weir would be in as he won in '03

As for Vijay, he made the cut last year.  O'Meara not only made the cut, he came T22! Langer missed the cut by a shot, Woosnam only by 3.  These guys do bring their A game to pretty much the only big event they get to each year and they beat a lot of the up and comers.

Personally I'd say if you're not playing on an active Tour, be that Seniors, PGA, European etc... then that's when you should just be turning up to show off your jackets and have a crack at the par 3.


----------



## DCB (Apr 2, 2016)

Interesting thread. Whilst I voted Yes, I'd qualify that by saying it should extend its field to similar size as the other three Majors. It's crazy that an event of this standing has such a limited field. By all means allow The Club to make their invites, but, it needs a field of similar size as the others to be able to stand up the on equal terms.


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 2, 2016)

No. It's great viewing, and would remain a spectacle that the pros would want to play in, and the viewers would want to watch, but it's a glorified invitational, with the weakest field of all the majors.

It should also be given grief for the ridiculous rules on broadcasting. Seriously, a global sporting event dictating to the TV companies. It's pathetic. Imagine a Wimbledon final that didn't show the first two sets.


----------



## IainP (Apr 2, 2016)

murphthemog said:



			No. It's great viewing, and would remain a spectacle that the pros would want to play in, and the viewers would want to watch, but it's a glorified invitational, with the weakest field of all the majors.
		
Click to expand...

This


----------



## Spear-Chucker (Apr 2, 2016)

Tongo said:



			What, like those esteemed Open Championship venues?
		
Click to expand...

Fair point, I think there are Open venues there that should also have their status questioned. I don't want to ignore the rich history of certain clubs but exclusivity based on any supposed rationale is weakening for the game.


----------



## Maninblack4612 (Apr 2, 2016)

Since the consequences of it being,  or not being,  a major are nil does it matter?   It's in your own mind whether it is or not. I will always regard it as a major because of the spectacle that it is and the fact that,  if it were not a major,  there is no serious other contender.


----------



## paddyc (Apr 2, 2016)

Absolutely yes.

For me its the best major. Its the first biggee of the year and its a magical place steeped in history with so many great holes and drama over the years.

I think the question should be " Should the US PGA be a major"


----------



## Tongo (Apr 2, 2016)

Duckster said:



			I quite like the 15 year suggestion.  However that would mean *Weir would be in as he won in '03*

As for Vijay, he made the cut last year.  O'Meara not only made the cut, he came T22! Langer missed the cut by a shot, Woosnam only by 3.  These guys do bring their A game to pretty much the only big event they get to each year and they beat a lot of the up and comers.

Personally I'd say if you're not playing on an active Tour, be that Seniors, PGA, European etc... then that's when you should just be turning up to show off your jackets and have a crack at the par 3.
		
Click to expand...

Immelman's been mentioned a couple of times yet he'd still qualify for all 3 of the other majors were he a champion in them. Regardless of how he is playing.


----------



## IainP (Apr 2, 2016)

paddyc said:



			Absolutely yes.


I think the question should be " Should the US PGA be a major"
		
Click to expand...

Not checked recently but for many years it had the strongest of the fields based on player rankings.
Do know what you mean though.


----------



## guest100718 (Apr 2, 2016)

The masters is OK, but making stuff up and calling it a tradition is stupid.


----------



## JohnnyDee (Apr 2, 2016)

Voted yes but have some sympathy with the OP's view.

However it's *now* such a mainstay of the season that it can't be downgraded to a regular tour event in my view.

Should it ever have attained its status? Don't know as I don't understand the contemporary position in the game at the time it became a big deal.

All I do know is that for me it's "must watch" and heralds the season kicking off, with all of its possibilities stretched out before me.

This time next year, Rodney...


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 2, 2016)

Yes although it needs to be updated. There needs to be a limit for the ex-winners and in all honesty most are taking places that could go to players that would/should be more competitive. Have a veteran event on the Wednesday before the par three (or earlier in the week) over eighteen holes if they want the patrons to see them play. They need to revisit who they invite or how they field qualifies. 

As for the venue and the week itself, leave well alone. Once it starts on the Thursday its golf heaven


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 2, 2016)

Yes, it's got so much history and is so firmly ensconced in the golfing psyche that it couldn't be removed. However I do agree with many of the arguments against and would prefer to see a more meritocratic set of entry criteria.


----------



## bladeplayer (Apr 2, 2016)

FairwayDodger said:



			Yes, it's got so much history and is so firmly ensconced in the golfing psyche that it couldn't be removed. However I do agree with many of the arguments against and would prefer to see a more meritocratic set of entry criteria.
		
Click to expand...

 This will do nicely


----------



## SammmeBee (Apr 2, 2016)

The field is the field and the coffin dodgers just add to it....they don't take the place of anyone.   To many choppers (Poulter et al) allowed into other Majors as it is, do they manage to keep their 'artificial' rankings as it is.....

The Masters is the best tournament outside of The Open....the course is by far the best they play all year....by miles......


----------



## freddielong (Apr 2, 2016)

Yes it is, and should be, a major everyone in the limited field has earned their place to be there.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Apr 2, 2016)

Not even worthy of debate

It is a yes


----------



## TheJezster (Apr 2, 2016)

Best major of the year, the only one I really look forward to each year. I'll watch the others but this is the one to watch.


----------



## HankMarvin (Apr 2, 2016)

Hold the Press, Philly said it shouldn't be a Major.

Well that will be it knocked of the Major list now then........


----------



## Smiffy (Apr 3, 2016)

murphthemog said:



			No. It's great viewing, and would remain a spectacle that the pros would want to play in, and the viewers would want to watch, but *it's a glorified invitational, with the weakest field of all the majors.*
It should also be given grief for the ridiculous rules on broadcasting. Seriously, a global sporting event dictating to the TV companies. It's pathetic. Imagine a Wimbledon final that didn't show the first two sets.
		
Click to expand...

As usual, Murph has got it spot on.
I think that the biggest part of it's appeal is that it heralds the start of the golfing season for the majority of the "great unwashed".
Perfectly manicured fairways, glorious sunshine, not a hint of breeze. It truly is a sight to behold.
Play it in howling winds, peeing rain, players wrapped up in waterproofs etc. and I bet it would lose a lot of that appeal.
And as much as they deserve their accolades for past achievements, watching the likes of Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer hobbling around on zimmer frames, shooting in the 90's and "competing in a Major" makes a mockery of the term "Major".

A definite *NO* from me.


----------



## chrisd (Apr 3, 2016)

Ive voted yes simply because it's my favourite tournament of the year. Ok, it would have to change certain entry criteria etc but I prefer it to the US open, not that I'm suggesting it should replace it. 

HID is on a hen do from Friday to Sunday so I can happily wallow in as much as I want next week!


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 3, 2016)

It's a big *yes* from me. Ok the occasional no name wins it, and that would never happen in the Open or US Open.... Or would it? Todd Hamilton and, the then unheard of, John Daly immediately spring to mind.

What about the selection process for the other 3 Majors? You can't say our own Open selects the best in the world by any stretch of the imagination. 

And as was pointed out elsewhere, Tom Watson wouldn't have got so close to winning the Open a few years back if it wasn't for the past champions ticket.

Every single Major has a whole host of players you wouldn't have a bet on.

What about the course? It's way better than some of the rubbish the U.S. Open and PGA is played on. And dare I say Royal St George's, Hoylake and Turnberry are only average.


----------



## Smiffy (Apr 3, 2016)

Hobbit said:



Every single Major has a whole host of players you wouldn't have a bet on. 

Click to expand...

That might be because they are playing badly Brian, not because they are ready for the knackers yard.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 3, 2016)

Smiffy said:



			That might be because they are playing badly Brian, not because they are ready for the knackers yard.
		
Click to expand...

And some might be mid table pro's who'll never be anything more than no name players. How often do we hear of a club pro from Wiscogie leading the U.S. PGA? Our own Open with international qualifiers held in various countries around the world turns up its fair share of dross.

If the criteria for the Masters needs an overhaul, then so does it for all of them. But in terms of adding something to the mix, the quirky selection process for each of the Majors is part of the buzz.


----------



## Smiffy (Apr 3, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			And some might be mid table pro's who'll never be anything more than no name players. How often do we hear of a club pro from Wiscogie leading the U.S. PGA? Our own Open with international qualifiers held in various countries around the world turns up its fair share of dross.

If the criteria for the Masters needs an overhaul, then so does it for all of them. But in terms of adding something to the mix, the quirky selection process for each of the Majors is part of the buzz.
		
Click to expand...


So serious question.
Do you agree that the likes of Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer (or others that stand absolutely _*no chance *_of winning) should prevent a younger, upcoming player, their shot at lifting one of golfs greatest prizes???


----------



## Ethan (Apr 3, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			It's a big *yes* from me. Ok the occasional no name wins it, and that would never happen in the Open or US Open.... Or would it? Todd Hamilton and, the then unheard of, John Daly immediately spring to mind.

What about the selection process for the other 3 Majors? You can't say our own Open selects the best in the world by any stretch of the imagination. 

And as was pointed out elsewhere, Tom Watson wouldn't have got so close to winning the Open a few years back if it wasn't for the past champions ticket.

Every single Major has a whole host of players you wouldn't have a bet on.

What about the course? It's way better than some of the rubbish the U.S. Open and PGA is played on. And dare I say Royal St George's, Hoylake and Turnberry are only average.





Click to expand...

But The Open is an event that allows shorter hitters to compete too. Now many short hitters win The Masters (Zach Johnson being a recent exception, but he chipped and putted like God) and none of the over 50s guys have put in a serious effort to contend for years. There is a difference between a 59 year old Watson, who was still winning Champion Tours events, and a Doug Ford, who turns up to shoot 2 rounds in the 80s and then pick up his cheque and clear off. 

The Open has open qualifying. If you have the handicap that allows you to compete, you can lift the Claret Jug. Different set up than an invitational.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 3, 2016)

Smiffy said:



			So serious question.
Do you agree that the likes of Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer (or others that stand absolutely _*no chance *_of winning) should prevent a younger, upcoming player, their shot at lifting one of golfs greatest prizes???
		
Click to expand...

The three you listed open the competition but don't play in it. As for the Lyle's and Woosnams etc, it's not that long ago that a senior was being touted for the Ryder Cup team. But if it's about a young up and coming 'v' a past champion, truthfully do you think either will win?

That said, it's worth looking at the criteria for qualification. It isn't exclusive as you think. It may be by invitation but that invitation in virtually every aspect is down to where a player is in world/European/national rankings.



Ethan said:



			But The Open is an event that allows shorter hitters to compete too. Now many short hitters win The Masters (Zach Johnson being a recent exception, but he chipped and putted like God) and none of the over 50s guys have put in a serious effort to contend for years. There is a difference between a 59 year old Watson, who was still winning Champion Tours events, and a Doug Ford, who turns up to shoot 2 rounds in the 80s and then pick up his cheque and clear off. 

The Open has open qualifying. If you have the handicap that allows you to compete, you can lift the Claret Jug. Different set up than an invitational.
		
Click to expand...

How many short courses are there on any of the tours now? 

As as per my reply to Smiffy, have a look at the criteria for invitation. It's nowhere near as exclusive as people make out. PGA.com has the field and the qualifying criteria. Seems pretty inclusive to me.


----------



## timd77 (Apr 3, 2016)

Yes in my view.

The set up and qualifying may not be the usual but it's grown in size to such an extent, that everyone who has ever played the game wants to win it.

I know it's hypothetical but for a tournament that EVERYONE wants to win, not be a major would be absolutely ludicrous. 

Add to that the fact it's a bit like the FA Cup final or the grand national, in that even non golfers watch it religiously every year, it's definitely a major.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Apr 3, 2016)

If you are good enough you are playing in the masters, if not, then tough luck

*Qualifications for Masters Invitation*




Masters Tournament Champions (Lifetime)
US Open Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
British Open Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
PGA Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
Winners of The Players Championship (Three years)
Current US Amateur Champion (Honorary, non-competing after 1 year) and the runner-up to the current US Amateur Champion
Current British Amateur Champion (Honorary, non-competing after 1 year)
Current Asia-Pacific Amateur Champion
Current Latin America Amateur Champion
Current US Mid-Amateur Champion
The first 12 players, including ties, in the previous year's Masters Tournament
The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's US Open Championship
The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's British Open Championship
The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's PGA Championship
Winners of PGA Tour events that award a full-point allocation for the season-ending Tour Championship, from previous Masters to current Masters
Those qualifying for the previous year's season-ending Tour Championship
The 50 leaders on the Final Official World Golf Ranking for the previous calendar year
*The 50 leaders on the Official World Golf Ranking published during the week prior to the current Masters Tournament*



I highlighted the last one, when all is said and done, the top 50 in the world are invited, if you want to play in the US masters be in the top 50, if not, then you are perhaps not quite good enough.

None of the exemptions exclude a talented young player from qualifying, they add players to the field, you could take away all the exemptions you would be left with TOP 50 in the world which no one can say is unfair.


----------



## freddielong (Apr 3, 2016)

I agree the field is limited but what I don't understand is why some think that adding 50 Luke lists or Roberto castros would make it more of a major.

People have to qualify to attend the Masters if you don't achieve the qualifying criteria you don't get in.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 3, 2016)

freddielong said:



			I agree the field is limited but what I don't understand is why some think that adding 50 Luke lists or Roberto castros would make it more of a major.

People have to qualify to attend the Masters if you don't achieve the qualifying criteria you don't get inVITED.
		
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you&#128077;&#128538;


----------



## freddielong (Apr 3, 2016)

Imurg said:



			Fixed that for you&#128077;&#128538;
		
Click to expand...

You are obsessing over a word that isn't important, if you don't qualify to play in the Open you don't get an invite (the option to play) either.


----------



## Tongo (Apr 3, 2016)

Smiffy said:



			So serious question.
Do you agree that the likes of Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer (or others that stand absolutely _*no chance *_of winning) should prevent a younger, upcoming player, their shot at lifting one of golfs greatest prizes???
		
Click to expand...

None of the ex-champions prevent any young players fro qualifying. The number of players in the field changes each year because they dont have 156 players like the other majors. So if someone meets the criteria, they are invited, regardless of whether Jack, Arnie, Tom, Ben etc decide to play or not. 

The Masters just has less places available. Does anybody question the validity of the WGC events that are not full 156 player fields? 

You could argue that in a field of 156 players at the other 3 majors that the past champions are denying qualifiers number 156, 157 and 158 a place by inviting past champs.


----------



## Ethan (Apr 3, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			How many short courses are there on any of the tours now? 

As as per my reply to Smiffy, have a look at the criteria for invitation. It's nowhere near as exclusive as people make out. PGA.com has the field and the qualifying criteria. Seems pretty inclusive to me.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say the Open venues were short courses, but they are playable for shorter hitters. Some courses require long carries to carry hazards or because green scan't be held with medium/long irons, others allow players who shape the ball and can knock it down a bit, or have a tidy short game to do well. The Open often allows a running game which can bring shorter hitters back into it.


----------



## Ethan (Apr 3, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			If you are good enough you are playing in the masters, if not, then tough luck

I highlighted the last one, when all is said and done, the top 50 in the world are invited, if you want to play in the US masters be in the top 50, if not, then you are perhaps not quite good enough.

None of the exemptions exclude a talented young player from qualifying, they add players to the field, you could take away all the exemptions you would be left with TOP 50 in the world which no one can say is unfair.
		
Click to expand...

If you are American enough, you mean. Nobody qualifies, they are invited. 

The Masters can't be considered a global major when it invites the winner of the John Deere Classic or the Mayakoba Classic (which have a winner OWGR points allocation of 30 and 24, respectively, but not the winner of the BMW PGA Championship (64 points), Dubai World Tour Champs (52), Turkish Airlines (44), Scottish Open (50), Irish Open (48) etc etc. The OWGR tends to flatter Americans because of the larger point allocations to most of their events as well, so the OWGR top 50 is somewhat skewed. 

They also invite the winner of the US Mid-Amateur, an event for over 35 year olds, and the winner and runner up of the US Amateur, but only the winner of the Amateur. 

It has always been something of a glorified PGA Tour event and is only changing very slowly.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Apr 3, 2016)

Ethan said:



			If you are American enough, you mean. Nobody qualifies, they are invited. 

The Masters can't be considered a global major when it invites the winner of the John Deere Classic or the Mayakoba Classic (which have a winner OWGR points allocation of 30 and 24, respectively, but not the winner of the BMW PGA Championship (64 points), Dubai World Tour Champs (52), Turkish Airlines (44), Scottish Open (50), Irish Open (48) etc etc. The OWGR tends to flatter Americans because of the larger point allocations to most of their events as well, so the OWGR top 50 is somewhat skewed. 

They also invite the winner of the US Mid-Amateur, an event for over 35 year olds, and the winner and runner up of the US Amateur, but only the winner of the Amateur. 

It has always been something of a glorified PGA Tour event and is only changing very slowly.
		
Click to expand...


Nobody qualifies they are invited?  OK as per every other major

Mid Amateur is for over 25s not over 35s btw

You can always say, but why not invite them based on this or that, it will never please all the people

IF you are good enough you will get in, good enough is top 50 in the world


----------



## Tongo (Apr 3, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			Nobody qualifies they are invited?  OK as per every other major

Mid Amateur is for over 25s not over 35s btw

You can always say, but why not invite them based on this or that, it will never please all the people

IF you are good enough you will get in, good enough is top 50 in the world
		
Click to expand...

The Masters also offers places to the top 50 on 2 separate cut off dates which, i think, is unique amongst the majors.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 3, 2016)

I remember one year Els didn't make the Top 50 - they "invited" a couple of Amatuers but wouldn't invite Els - that year he won the Open afterwards I believe. 

Believe there should also be some qualifying comps to allow others to gain entry like the Opens. But not sure why the US Event winners get entry yet the ET event winners don't - shouldn't be one rule for one and one rule for others. 

For a major IMO it should be more open to people and winners after 5 years have passed should no longer get an automatic invite. The exclusivity is what golf is trying to reduce yet the first Major is full of it


----------



## Sweep (Apr 3, 2016)

It should absolutely be a major. An iconic tournament on an iconic course. I have no problem with the entry field. The previous winners are a big part of the event, the Champions Dinner, the Champions Locker Room etc. They don't take the place of anyone else. The top golfers in the world get in by right as do the US and British Amateur Champions.
As for its history of inclusivity (or not), well you could lay that accusation at the R&A and by extension, The Open. I just found it really funny when Vijay was presenting the jacket to Tiger.


----------



## Tongo (Apr 3, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I remember one year Els didn't make the Top 50 - they "invited" a couple of Amatuers but wouldn't invite Els - that year he won the Open afterwards I believe. 

Believe there should also be some qualifying comps to allow others to gain entry like the Opens. But not sure why the US Event winners get entry yet the ET event winners don't - shouldn't be one rule for one and one rule for others. 

For a major IMO it should be more open to people and *winners after 5 years have passed should no longer get an automatic invite.* The exclusivity is what golf is trying to reduce yet the first Major is full of it
		
Click to expand...

So should that be the same for the other 3 majors as well then? 

And who honestly would have predicted that Ernie would have contended at that Open, let alone win it? 

The Masters qualifying system certainly has its flaws but then so do the other 3 majors as well.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 3, 2016)

Tongo said:



			So should that be the same for the other 3 majors as well then? 

And who honestly would have predicted that Ernie would have contended at that Open, let alone win it? 

The Masters qualifying system certainly has its flaws but then so do the other 3 majors as well.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it should be the same for the other majors as well.

The qualifying criteria should be the same for all four


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 3, 2016)

Sweep said:



			It should absolutely be a major. An iconic tournament on an iconic course. I have no problem with the entry field. The previous winners are a big part of the event, the Champions Dinner, the Champions Locker Room etc. They don't take the place of anyone else. The top golfers in the world get in by right as do the US and British Amateur Champions.
As for its history of inclusivity (or not), well you could lay that accusation at the R&A and by extension, The Open. I just found it really funny when Vijay was presenting the jacket to Tiger.
		
Click to expand...

I think you're right and just because it has it's own qualification process via invite, why shouldn't it be a major? It's unique and iconic. That'll do for me


----------



## Tongo (Apr 3, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



*Yes it should be the same for the other majors as well.*

The qualifying criteria should be the same for all four
		
Click to expand...

Shame. We'd have missed out on the drama of Norman at the 08 Open and Watson at the 09 Open if that had been the case. And i'd hazard a guess Crenshaw in the 95 Masters. Jack in 86 might have been under threat as well. Golf starts to sound a bit duller if those sorts of stories hadnt taken place.


----------



## Tongo (Apr 3, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I think you're right and just because it has it's own qualification process via invite, why shouldn't it be a major? It's *unique* and iconic. That'll do for me
		
Click to expand...

A quality which too many seem happy to eradicate in this day and age.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 3, 2016)

Tongo said:



			Shame. We'd have missed out on the drama of Norman at the 08 Open and Watson at the 09 Open if that had been the case. And i'd hazard a guess Crenshaw in the 95 Masters. Jack in 86 might have been under threat as well. Golf starts to sound a bit duller if those sorts of stories hadnt taken place.
		
Click to expand...

But we might have had other dramas instead - time to start moving on and freshening it up.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 3, 2016)

Tongo said:



			A quality which too many seem happy to eradicate in this day and age.
		
Click to expand...

Being "unique" doesn't always mean it's a good quality - the lack of lady members at various clubs is "unique" , the lack of tickets to public is "unique" , the lack of chance to play the course is "unique" 

Some peoples "unique" could be someone else "tired"


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 3, 2016)

Do the players consider it a Major?

If so then everything else is irrelevant.


----------



## Tongo (Apr 3, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Being "unique" doesn't always mean it's a good quality - the lack of lady members at various clubs is "unique" , the lack of tickets to public is "unique" , the lack of chance to play the course is "unique" 

Some peoples "unique" could be someone else "tired"
		
Click to expand...

So why is the Masters targeted when other majors possess anomalies or unique policies? 

Should the USPGA be counted as a major bearing in mind they insist on those pesky 20 PGA professionals denying some tour pro a place? (For info: I have no issue with the 20 PGA pros playing)


----------



## Tongo (Apr 3, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Do the players consider it a Major?

If so then everything else is irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it up


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 3, 2016)

Tongo said:



			A quality which too many seem happy to eradicate in this day and age.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'm all for Augusta doing it there way, even if I don't agree with everything they actually do. The pros all know that they need t be right up there to get an invite and it's aspirational for so many. I would impose a limit on the ex-winners exemption and expand the field by say 10-15 (only a couple more groups) but other than that, let it be


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 3, 2016)

Tongo said:



			So why is the Masters targeted when other majors possess anomalies or unique policies? 

Should the USPGA be counted as a major bearing in mind they insist on those pesky 20 PGA professionals denying some tour pro a place? (For info: I have no issue with the 20 PGA pros playing)
		
Click to expand...

Because the Masters is coming up and it's a discussion we had in the clubhouse 

Whilst other majors do indeed have restrictions it's also a lot more open - it opens up the major to a lot more current golfers and it's balanced to involve all the Tours ( US , ET and Asia ) - where as the Masters isn't.

The past champions isn't the major issue for me 

It's the inviting people who win in the US and the US money list but ignore all the others beyond the Top 50 

The Open for example has - Top 20 in the Asian money list , PGA winners , etc etc - where as it doesn't gain entry into the Masters - yet win the Puerto Rico Open ( or comp along those lines ) and you're in.


----------



## Stuart_C (Apr 3, 2016)

Yes it certainly is a major but I think the shambolic ticket situation and the limited live coverage needs to looked at, it's too much of a closed shop.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 3, 2016)

I didn't think every PGA event carried Masters entry


----------



## 351DRIVER (Apr 3, 2016)

Its open to everyone, if you get into the top 50 in the world you are in...


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 3, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			Its open to everyone, if you get into the top 50 in the world you are in...
		
Click to expand...

And where are most of the ranking points based - on the US Tour , Majors , Fed Ex and WGC - lots of golfers play in the other tours but their events don't have the same amount of ranking points. So as you can see by the Top 50 most are playing on the US Tour.


----------



## SugarPenguin (Apr 3, 2016)

Interesting thread. Never really thought about it before in all honestly.

It would be hard to strip The Masters as a major now. I kind of like the idea that its only played at Augusta compared to all the others on a rota. Mixes it up a little.
I have voted for yes but can understand why people vote no. Its my favourite major/tournament by far for some reason.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 3, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			But we might have had other dramas instead - time to start moving on and freshening it up.
		
Click to expand...

There will always be dramas, but I like my dramas to also include some of yesterday's heroes figuring on leaderboards. 

As for freshening up, freshening up to what though? It will still be four rounds of stroke play with at least 50-70 of the best players in the world. Sometimes changing something is a fairly pointless exercise. In this case there isn't a great deal wrong with it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 3, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			There will always be dramas, but I like my dramas to also include some of yesterday's heroes figuring on leaderboards. 

As for freshening up, freshening up to what though? It will still be four rounds of stroke play with at least 50-70 of the best players in the world. Sometimes changing something is a fairly pointless exercise. In this case there isn't a great deal wrong with it.
		
Click to expand...

And some will like their dramas to involve the current crop who are the future of the game 

And in regards the inviting and selection criteria I believe there to be a great deal wrong with it


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 3, 2016)

Can't help but wonder how many potential contenders, never mind winners, are missing out under the current qualifying criteria.

Hard to think of any.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 3, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			...
The Open for example has - *Top 20 in the Asian money list *, PGA winners , etc etc - where as it doesn't gain entry into the Masters - yet win the Puerto Rico Open ( or comp along those lines ) and you're in.
		
Click to expand...

Er...What?!

Please show where that's an exemption/auto-invite!

PGA Winners get 5 year exemption/auto-invite same as they do for The Open!

And nothing wrong with exempting Winners of PGA events in the past year imo!


----------



## Ethan (Apr 3, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			Nobody qualifies they are invited?  OK as per every other major

Mid Amateur is for over 25s not over 35s btw

You can always say, but why not invite them based on this or that, it will never please all the people

IF you are good enough you will get in, good enough is top 50 in the world
		
Click to expand...

Nobody qualifies. it is an invitational event. Sorry, but that is the case. The two Opens have qualifying events of one sort or another. Joe Pro can pitch up at Walton Heath the Monday after the PGA and have a go. Michael Canpbell did that and won. The Open also has qualifying events on several countries.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 3, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			There will always be dramas, but I like my dramas to also include some of yesterday's heroes figuring on leaderboards. 

As for freshening up, freshening up to what though? It will still be four rounds of stroke play with at least 50-70 of the best players in the world. Sometimes changing something is a fairly pointless exercise. In this case there isn't a great deal wrong with it.
		
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with those that are still competitive playing but some aren't and I do think it's a shame to see them struggle round for a score well over par. However, it is what it is, and has a special place in golf and I think however the event is structured and run it deserves the major status and golf is better for it. Always signals the start of the golfing season in my mind


----------



## richy (Apr 3, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And some will like their dramas to involve the current crop who are the future of the game 

And in regards the inviting and selection criteria I believe there to be a great deal wrong with it
		
Click to expand...

Which current crop of future stars aren't going to feature this year?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 3, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Can't help but wonder how many potential contenders, never mind winners, are missing out under the current qualifying criteria.

Hard to think of any.
		
Click to expand...

Just a few Europeans missing that could challenge

Molinari
Fleetwood
Pepperall

Other players like Levy

Top 200 are littered with players that could mount a challenge


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 3, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And some will like their dramas to involve the current crop who are the future of the game 

And in regards the inviting and selection criteria I believe there to be a great deal wrong with it
		
Click to expand...

Aren't the WGC events in effect nothing more than invite only and open to the top 50/64 depending on the event? They certainly preclude a lot of players as well and don't feature any of those that are the future of the game.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 3, 2016)

richy said:



			Which current crop of future stars aren't going to feature this year?
		
Click to expand...

Most of the European Tour members who play solely on the ET will be missing


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 3, 2016)

richy said:



			Which current crop of future stars aren't going to feature this year?
		
Click to expand...

A crystal ball would be needed to see which youngster would actually develop into a star. I'll take seeing a past champ having a struggle than a no name having struggle.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 3, 2016)

It's an American event. Of course it won't be heavily influenced by the European Tour. Why would it. Even the Open is multi-national and a lot can only get in by pre-qualifying so don't see what difference it makes


----------



## garyinderry (Apr 3, 2016)

The limited coverage is my only gripe.


----------



## NWJocko (Apr 3, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Nobody qualifies. it is an invitational event. Sorry, but that is the case. .
		
Click to expand...

You make it sound like they sit round and decide who they will or won't invite this year!?

There are qualifying criteria in the same way other majors have mechanisms to qualify. The "invitation" is almost ceremonial, unless you know of a player that's met their criteria and not received an invite?

There are things I would change about it (dictating tv coverage and access to tickets majinly) but it absolutely should be a major. Whenever you hear the pros asked about which major they want to win, even the Brits want to win the Masters after The Open.


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 3, 2016)

If the uspga, the r and a , etc, said, allow full tv coverage, or you can kiss major status goodbye, what would happen?

Yep. You would see every shot, start to finish.

It's time for the tours to man up. It just is.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 3, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Just a few Europeans missing that could challenge

Molinari
Fleetwood
Pepperall

Other players like Levy

Top 200 are littered with players that could mount a challenge
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but none of the above have ever done anything to suggest they would be likely to mount a serious challenge. Even Francesco Molinari's record in Majors or on the PGA Tour does not seem to support the idea of him being in contention.

We have to accept that the organisers of any Major can set qualification standards to reflect the history and identity of their tournament. 

We may not like those criteria but "them's the rules."

As for an event being a Major and that being dependent upon the quality of the field then The Players' Championship would probably stand alone.

However, there are many other factors that determine the standing of an event as a Major.


----------



## Raesy92 (Apr 3, 2016)

Probably my favourite tournament of the year to watch.

Definitely should have major status, it takes a special player to win it. I don't get the 'exclusivity' issue either. You get to a high enough ranking in the world and you will get an invite. Simple.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Sorry but none of the above have ever done anything to suggest they would be likely to mount a serious challenge. Even Francesco Molinari's record in Majors or on the PGA Tour does not seem to support the idea of him being in contention.
		
Click to expand...

They would have just as much chance as anyone - they are talented professional golfers who have won tournaments - can't dismiss - that's the beauty of golf events




			We have to accept that the organisers of any Major can set qualification standards to reflect the history and identity of their tournament. 

We may not like those criteria but "them's the rules."
		
Click to expand...

People don't "have to accept" anything - they are free to discuss and debate it - I'm pretty sure golf tournaments evolve and the Masters will at one stage 




			As for an event being a Major and that being dependent upon the quality of the field then The Players' Championship would probably stand alone.

However, there are many other factors that determine the standing of an event as a Major.
		
Click to expand...

Again the Players is another US PGA Event weighted heavily to US players or players on the PGA tour - should never be a major.


----------



## ger147 (Apr 4, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Er...What?!

Please show where that's an exemption/auto-invite!

PGA Winners get 5 year exemption/auto-invite same as they do for The Open!

And nothing wrong with exempting Winners of PGA events in the past year imo!
		
Click to expand...

1st place from last season's Asian Tour OOM gets an invite, not sure where the top 20 statement came from.


----------



## Smiffy (Apr 4, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			I'll take seeing a past champ having a struggle than a no name having struggle.
		
Click to expand...

Don't understand this comment Bri.
There's no guarantee that a young "no name" will struggle.
But I guarantee that a 60 year old "past champ" will.
Give these old boys their own Stableford competition on the Monday after the Majors.
Some of them would struggle for 36 points.


----------



## Slab (Apr 4, 2016)

Now that it is one it canâ€™t really be stripped in this commercial age (its far more likely weâ€™ll get 5th major rather than an alternate 4th) 
Itâ€™s a bit like Monaco for the F1, no way on earth it would get a race awarded today but itâ€™s not only still there but there as one of F1â€™s blue ribbon/majors!

Lots Iâ€™d like to see change about the Masters
â€¢	Treatment of caddies etc
â€¢	No critique from media
â€¢	One trick pony course
â€¢	Broadcast limitations

Canâ€™t really include ticketing in the list though, after all its for the same reason Iâ€™m not going to Monaco this year either

I used to disagree with entry list but after reading the full criteria a few years back itâ€™s pretty much got the likely contenders every year (itâ€™s an annoyance they get away with the â€˜invitationâ€™ tag but thatâ€™s just another thing Iâ€™d like to see change) 

Warts an all its a Major and will remain so (unless Trump buys the course!)


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 4, 2016)

Smiffy said:



			Don't understand this comment Bri.
There's no guarantee that a young "no name" will struggle.
But I guarantee that a 60 year old "past champ" will.
Give these old boys their own Stableford competition on the Monday after the Majors.
Some of them would struggle for 36 points.
		
Click to expand...

Splitting hairs and assumptions Rob. But does Langer and Couples struggle? How many 20 yr olds make the cut? Will either the U.S. or British amateur champion win? Will the Seniors tour champion win? There are oldies in the field that won't win, and there are youngsters in the field that won't win.

Each to their own at the end of the day, but I prefer to watch Couples or Langer than this years amateur champions.

The cream of the game, all the way down to at least 50 in the world, are invited on merit, not just invited. The amateur champions and seniors add to the flavour but not to the real battle. As for the lesser pro's, as someone else said earlier in the thread, get into the top 50.


----------



## Smiffy (Apr 4, 2016)

Hobbit said:



			Splitting hairs and assumptions Rob. But does Langer and Couples struggle? How many 20 yr olds make the cut? Will either the U.S. or British amateur champion win? Will the Seniors tour champion win? There are oldies in the field that won't win, and there are youngsters in the field that won't win.

Each to their own at the end of the day, but I prefer to watch Couples or Langer than this years amateur champions.

The cream of the game, all the way down to at least 50 in the world, are invited on merit, not just invited. The amateur champions and seniors add to the flavour but not to the real battle. As for the lesser pro's, as someone else said earlier in the thread, get into the top 50.
		
Click to expand...

Each to their own Bri, and quite right too.
But I still can't help feeling that somebody somewhere is being done out of a chance to win a major due to all the old boys that are still allowed to play in it.
Seeing Sandy Lyle or Woosnam shooting two rounds of 82 and 86 and then catching a 'plane home doesn't make me feel like it's a "proper" major.


----------



## Hobbit (Apr 4, 2016)

Smiffy said:



			Each to their own Bri, and quite right too.
But I still can't help feeling that somebody somewhere is being done out of a chance to win a major due to all the old boys that are still allowed to play in it.
Seeing Sandy Lyle or Woosnam shooting two rounds of 82 and 86 and then catching a 'plane home doesn't make me feel like it's a "proper" major.
		
Click to expand...

I'd certainly agree to a tweak with past champions. But I just don't know how you'd tweak it. Maybe miss 3 cuts on the trot and all you get is an invite to the Champions dinner?

Equally, if you moved the bar to top 65 in the world would that then mean your amateur champs have less chance to make the cut?

The only absolute way that doesn't discriminate is make top 100 in the world, but that would exclude your tour champs from Asia and the top amateurs. And then all you have is a copy of the comp from the previous week(s).

The results for the Masters mirrors the other Majors. There's the odd one off winner but the vast majority are true champions.


----------



## Ethan (Apr 4, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Can't help but wonder how many potential contenders, never mind winners, are missing out under the current qualifying criteria.

Hard to think of any.
		
Click to expand...

Well, that is hardly the point, is it. Augusta is famously a course with few first time winners, and players need to learn the course. For all we know, Thomas Pieters may be a future winner, and he needs to start to learn the course, but not this year. 

To invert your dubious logic, how many players are invited who have no realistic chance of contention? I reckon about 20.


----------



## Slab (Apr 4, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Well, that is hardly the point, is it. Augusta is famously a course with few first time winners, and players need to learn the course. For all we know, Thomas Pieters may be a future winner, and he needs to start to learn the course, but not this year. 

To invert your dubious logic, how many players are invited who have no realistic chance of contention? I reckon about 20.
		
Click to expand...

By no means a fan boy of the Masters qualification but the entry list shows that 20 players (over 20% of the field) this weekend will be first timers & while I don't know how that compares to other majors it sounds pretty healthy on its own

Someone's always gonna miss the list


----------



## Ethan (Apr 4, 2016)

Slab said:



			By no means a fan boy of the Masters qualification but the entry list shows that 20 players (over 20% of the field) this weekend will be first timers & while I don't know how that compares to other majors it sounds pretty healthy on its own

Someone's always gonna miss the list
		
Click to expand...

But that is driven by the fact that the Am champions are usually first timers, with new winners each year, and that last year there were a bunch of first time PGA Tour winners. Next year may be different for the latter. Still rather US-centric though.


----------



## Slab (Apr 4, 2016)

Ethan said:



			But that is driven by the fact that the Am champions are usually first timers, with new winners each year, and that last year there were a bunch of first time PGA Tour winners. Next year may be different for the latter. Still rather US-centric though.
		
Click to expand...

Yup 8 of the 20 are US players (not checked to see if only US players could have won the comps that got them in though)

Next year could be different as you say, Thomas Pieters might even break into top 50 or win an event that gets him invited 

There still gonna be some poor sod that just misses out


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 4, 2016)

Not a fan of it's exclusivity - but what's the definition of a 'major'?  It's simply moniker rather than a classification (for a classification you have to have a set of criteria - which the majors don't - they just are as was decided back then).  It's not as if it's preventing another tournament from becoming a 'major'.  So for me it can remain a major because of it's uniqueness (exclusivity, limited field, aura, one great course etc) and that uniqueness makes it difficult, and hence very special, to win.  And for me maybe just being that 'special' is enough for me.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 4, 2016)

Ethan said:



			Well, that is hardly the point, is it. Augusta is famously a course with few first time winners, and players need to learn the course. For all we know, Thomas Pieters may be a future winner, and he needs to start to learn the course, but not this year. 

To invert your dubious logic, how many players are invited who have no realistic chance of contention? I reckon about 20.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with your second point but then it equally holds true with each of the Majors e.g. 20 club pro's in the PGA and those that come through Regional & Final Qualifying for the Open.

In recent years young Europeans like Willett and Sullivan have qualified so it is not exactly a "closed shop".


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			I agree with your second point but then it equally holds true with each of the Majors e.g. 20 club pro's in the PGA and those that come through Regional & Final Qualifying for the Open.

In recent years young Europeans like Willett and Sullivan have qualified so it is not exactly a "closed shop".
		
Click to expand...

This is the first year Sullivan has qualified and second year for Willet - both based on WR after good performances in Majors.

There is no reason why they could offer regional qualifying the same way as The Open and US Open which would then give players who can't gain the ranking points ( as they are weighted for US events ) a chance to play.


----------



## Slab (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			This is the first year Sullivan has qualified and second year for Willet - both based on WR after good performances in Majors.

There is no reason why they could offer regional qualifying the same way as The Open and US Open which would then give players who can't gain the ranking points ( as they are weighted for US events ) a chance to play.
		
Click to expand...

But they are by definition 'Opens'

This one's called the 'Masters' 

Wouldn't offering regional qualifying be like opening up the Champions league group stage to all the regional league winners?


----------



## Fyldewhite (Apr 4, 2016)

Yes.

It's iconic, the course is almost mythical. Ask any rookie pro their goals and one will be to qualify for the Masters. Personally I can remember more exciting Masters than I can Opens and I look forward to it every year. Yes, folk will pick fault, they will with anything but I'm happy with it as it is and has been all my life. A truly great tournament.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

Slab said:



			But there are by definition 'Opens'

This one's called the 'Masters' 

Wouldn't offering regional qualifying be like opening up the Champions league group stage to all the regional league winners?
		
Click to expand...

What it's called should have no bearing at all - being called the "Masters" shouldn't stop there be a regional qualifying to allow another 10 or so golfers the ability around the world to qualify.


----------



## rksquire (Apr 4, 2016)

Going by my level of excitement for this week, the answer is Yes.  It's earned that position and it deserves to retain it.  Are you not super excited for it?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

rksquire said:



			Going by my level of excitement for this week, the answer is Yes.  It's earned that position and it deserves to retain it.  Are you not super excited for it?
		
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to watching it but on the same level as I look forward to watching the Players or the PGA or US PGA 

The excitement levels increase for the US Open then even further for the Ryder Cup and then top level for The Open which IMO is the premier golf event in the calendar


----------



## louise_a (Apr 4, 2016)

I have always enjoyed looking forward to The Master more than any other bar The Open and the Ryder Cup, probably because it is on in the evening so can be watched after work but didn't go on much after midnight and was on the BBC. The course is always visually stunning too.
Not sure whether it ought o be a major though due to the selectiveness on the event.
Compulsive viewing though.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			This is the first year Sullivan has qualified and second year for Willet - both based on WR after good performances in Majors.

There is no reason why they could offer regional qualifying the same way as The Open and US Open which would then give players who can't gain the ranking points ( as they are weighted for US events ) a chance to play.
		
Click to expand...

It is easier for Americans to qualify for three of the four Majors which is hardly surprising.

They are US events and the PGA Tour is clearly the strongest in the world. That is why so many players from around the world try to play on it.

We have no comparable events to the Masters or even the Players in Europe as, despite the best efforts of the ET, top players from the PGA Tour, including some notable Europeans, cannot be enticed to play in the BMW event at Wentworth.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 4, 2016)

ger147 said:



			1st place from last season's Asian Tour OOM gets an invite, *not sure where the top 20 statement came from*.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed! That was what I was challenging - and haven't had a reply/admission of error!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			It is easier for Americans to qualify for three of the four Majors which is hardly surprising.

They are US events and the PGA Tour is clearly the strongest in the world. That is why so many players from around the world try to play on it.

We have no comparable events to the Masters or even the Players in Europe as, despite the best efforts of the ET, top players from the PGA Tour, including some notable Europeans, cannot be enticed to play in the BMW event at Wentworth.
		
Click to expand...

And for me the Majors shouldn't be location driven - they should be for all the tours and not weighted towards one tours. And it's driven by money.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Apr 4, 2016)

If you should be at the masters as a potential winner, then qualifying should not be a problem

You will see the worlds top 50 are very international

21 Americans
29 others



http://www.owgr.com/ranking

To qualify get in the top 50 in the world
Past champs
Am champs etc

All add to the tournament for me

The CONTENDERS should be worlds top 50 golfers


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			If you should be at the masters as a potential winner, then qualifying should not be a problem

You will see the worlds top 50 are very international

http://www.owgr.com/ranking

To qualify get in the top 50 in the world
Past champs
Am champs etc

All add to the tournament for me

The CONTENDERS should be worlds top 50 golfers
		
Click to expand...

Do you think for example Thomas Pieters or Olesen or indeed Fisher or Chasiwra ( just won his national champs ) have the potential to win - I do but their comps dont hold enough WR points for them to climb into the top 50. 

As I said early Els one year didn't make it yet no doubt he has the potential to win the Masters. 

I believe there are players who played on the Presidents Cup team or even last Ryder Cup players - all players that get exemptions into other majors.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Apr 4, 2016)

People will always miss out, there will always be an easy opportunity to second guess someone missing

Els did not qualify, he should have tried harder, he MAY have won the Masters and the Open, he did not qualify due to his relatively poor play leading up to the masters

If he had played better golf, he would have been in the field

I do not see the issue, the qualification process is very clear, he failed to meet the standard, so did not get in

The best golfers in the world are mostly defined by their successes in majors, being a professional who is of the standard to be a contender, part of your job is to manage your opportunities and maintaining a high enough world ranking to assure instant qualification to all majors should be something that is always on your mind.

29 out of the worlds top 50 are NOT American

Just as a note the images show WORLD NUMBERS 1s for weeks at number 1, its quite cool.. wait until you see TIGER V the rest!
http://www.owgr.com/ranking


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			People will always miss out, there will always be an easy opportunity to second guess someone missing

Els did not qualify, he should have tried harder, he MAY have won the Masters and the Open, he did not qualify due to his relatively poor play leading up to the masters

If he had played better golf, he would have been in the field

I do not see the issue, the qualification process is very clear, he failed to meet the standard, so did not get in

The best golfers in the world are mostly defined by their successes in majors, being a professional who is of the standard to be a contender, part of your job is to manage your opportunities and maintaining a high enough world ranking to assure instant qualification to all majors should be something that is always on your mind.

29 out of the worlds top 50 are NOT American
		
Click to expand...

I know the qualfication criteria is clear

What I would like to see amongst other changes is the criteria to be widened and make all the majors the same criteria instead of The Masters being more exclusive than the other three 

How many of the Top 50 are regular US PGA Tour members ? Prob 99% without looking to check


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 4, 2016)

The current top 50 appears to be 80% PGA Tour players which would seem about right when you consider the relative size and strengths of the different Tours.

This is not a new thing, the PGA Tour has been the dominant force since the 1960's at least.

Even Europe's success in Ryder Cups has been largely attributable to players based in America.


----------



## 351DRIVER (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I know the qualfication criteria is clear

What I would like to see amongst other changes is the criteria to be widened and make all the majors the same criteria instead of The Masters being more exclusive than the other three 

How many of the Top 50 are regular US PGA Tour members ? Prob 99% without looking to check
		
Click to expand...


There is no reason for them to all be the same, they have different histories

The PGA always introduces a couple of dozen club pros, should the other 3 do this?  I think it is appropriate for the PGA to do this and it is good for THAT major, for the Masters to do this would damage the tournament.

I just cannot see that any contender can complain when they know that if they are top 50 they are in, if you are a top 50 potential major winner, you want to be number 1 not just top 50, if qualifying is the problem then are you a great asset to the tournament?  

I do not see the problem at all, the ONLY problem would be if qualification was not clear, as it is, you do what you need to to do get in or you do not play, simple


----------



## Ethan (Apr 4, 2016)

351DRIVER said:



			There is no reason for them to all be the same, they have different histories

The PGA always introduces a couple of dozen club pros, should the other 3 do this?  I think it is appropriate for the PGA to do this and it is good for THAT major, for the Masters to do this would damage the tournament.

I just cannot see that any contender can complain when they know that if they are top 50 they are in, if you are a top 50 potential major winner, you want to be number 1 not just top 50, if qualifying is the problem then are you a great asset to the tournament?  

I do not see the problem at all, the ONLY problem would be if qualification was not clear, as it is, you do what you need to to do get in or you do not play, simple
		
Click to expand...

We understand your point. You have repeated it a number of times. But I think you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of fairness or bias. 

If the OWGR fairly represented all of those who could reasonably contend at Augusta, that would be fine. But it probably doesn't. And there are a lot of players who have no realistic hope of contending, or in some cases, making the cut.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

Ethan said:



			We understand your point. You have repeated it a number of times. But I think you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of fairness or bias. 

If the OWGR fairly represented all of those who could reasonably contend at Augusta, that would be fine. But it probably doesn't. And there are a lot of players who have no realistic hope of contending, or in some cases, making the cut.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly that 

The World ranking points are very much weighted towards the PGA Tour because that's where the money is


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Exactly that 

The World ranking points are very much weighted towards the PGA Tour because that's where the money is
		
Click to expand...

Also where the better players are. 

19 of the last 20 Majors have been won by PGA Tour players, the one exception being Darren Clarke in 2011.


----------



## BTatHome (Apr 4, 2016)

I know it's an invitation, but the criteria are there to be seen by everyone, so has anyone not actually been invited that has fulfilled the criteria?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Also where the better players are. 

19 of the last 20 Majors have been won by PGA Tour players, the one exception being Darren Clarke in 2011.
		
Click to expand...

And ? I know the PGA is stronger - you are stating things that aren't being disagreed with.


----------



## Slab (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Exactly that 

The World ranking points are very much weighted towards the PGA Tour because that's where the money is
		
Click to expand...

Isn't that becasue the USPGA is strongest in terms of quality of competition/competitors 
(and it's the same reason the CL spots are weighted to England/Spain etc while Moldova, Albania etc don't benefit from anything as romantic as regional qualifying)

There's plenty routes into playing the Masters & it might be fairer to players if there were a few more spots, but is it fairer to the event? 

People would have got bored of Eddie the eagle types if it happened every time


----------



## TheJezster (Apr 4, 2016)

You have to keep them separate, they are different tournaments with different usp's. As was said earlier this isn't an 'open' so it's not for just anyone to qualify.  It's exclusive. You know you've made it when you play at the masters. That shouldn't ever change, it's part of its history and charm.  You don't want 4 majors all the same, that would be boring.  They need to be different and this is.  It's the best golfing event in the calendar bar the ryder cup! It absolutely is and should remain a major.  Hell it's probably the one most want to win, possibly with the exception of an open at St. Andrews


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

Slab said:



			Isn't that becasue the USPGA is strongest in terms of quality of competition/competitors 
(and it's the same reason the CL spots are weighted to England/Spain etc while Moldova, Albania etc don't benefit from anything as romantic as regional qualifying)

There's plenty routes into playing the Masters & it might be fairer to players if there were a few more spots, but is it fairer to the event? 

People would have got bored of Eddie the eagle types if it happened every time
		
Click to expand...

It's stronger because there is more money available so the top Pro's play for the money and they bring the ranking points with them 

IMO the ranking points system should be weighted per event regardless of the players playing 

Example - British Masters should be ranked the same as the Players 

BMW PGA the same as the PGA 

Fed Ex should get the same as the RTD

Regular tour events should be ranked the same both on the ET , PGA and Asia Tour 

One tour IMO shouldn't dominate 

Players shouldn't be forced to play on the PGA Tour to gain ranking points to allow them to enter the majors and WGC etc. 

Golf is dominated by the US PGA and things like the Fed Ex and IMO for the future of the game outside the US it needs to change.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And ? I know the PGA is stronger - you are stating things that aren't being disagreed with.
		
Click to expand...

Make up your mind.

You moan that the qualifying criteria are biased towards PGA players and yet acknowledge that the PGA Tour and, by definition, its players are the strongest.

Surely one of the tests set by a Major should be to challenge the best players, not to provide experience for up and coming youngsters.


----------



## Tongo (Apr 4, 2016)

Life becomes a lot easier once you realise that not everything is perfect and not everything is fair.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Make up your mind.

You moan that the qualifying criteria are biased towards PGA players and yet acknowledge that the PGA Tour and, by definition, its players are the strongest.

Surely one of the tests set by a Major should be to challenge the best players, not to provide experience for up and coming youngsters.
		
Click to expand...

Make me mind up ? 

I haven't changed it ? 

I know the PGA is the strongest tour - that hasn't been debated

But that doesn't mean there aren't talented players away from that tour that could challenge at the Masters - never said anything about just providing expirence for up and coming youngsters


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

Tongo said:



			Life becomes a lot easier once you realise that not everything is perfect and not everything is fair.
		
Click to expand...

Aren't we supposed to at least try and work towards a fairer system ? 

Isn't golf trying to promote itself to be open to all ? Yet we have one of their majors to be a bit more exclusive - or is it only when it suits


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's stronger because there is more money available so the top Pro's play for the money and they bring the ranking points with them 

IMO the ranking points system should be weighted per event regardless of the players playing 

Example - British Masters should be ranked the same as the Players 

BMW PGA the same as the PGA 

Fed Ex should get the same as the RTD

Regular tour events should be ranked the same both on the ET , PGA and Asia Tour 

One tour IMO shouldn't dominate 

Players shouldn't be forced to play on the PGA Tour to gain ranking points to allow them to enter the majors and WGC etc. 

Golf is dominated by the US PGA and things like the Fed Ex and IMO for the future of the game outside the US it needs to change.
		
Click to expand...

The players are professionals and will, therefore, gravitate towards those events offering the greatest financial rewards.

The prize money on offer this side of the Atlantic will never be an inducement to the international (not just US) players.


----------



## Raesy92 (Apr 4, 2016)

Did someone not post earlier complaining about OWGR points being overly biased towards PGA tour events yet then proceeded to state that they carried more weight than a few PGA tour events they used as an example in their post...?

Why should the ET's top non major event carry as much OWGR points as that of the PGA's? It shouldn't because the field is not as strong!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			The players are professionals and will, therefore, gravitate towards those events offering the greatest financial rewards.

The prize money on offer this side of the Atlantic will never be an inducement to the international (not just US) players.
		
Click to expand...

I know 

Hence why I said about bringing the ranking points away from the players to the actual event


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Make me mind up ? 

I haven't changed it ? 

I know the PGA is the strongest tour - that hasn't been debated

But that doesn't mean there aren't talented players away from that tour that could challenge at the Masters - never said anything about just providing expirence for up and coming youngsters
		
Click to expand...

But players such as Pepperall and Fleetwood don't even regularly contend in ordinary events, yet you suggest they could challenge at the Masters.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

Marc Leishman didn't regulary contend on the PGA tour yet did in the Masters 

Chad Champbell

Even Mike Weir and he went and won the Masters

Until last year or year before Spieth wasn't regularly contending 

I have no doubt there are plenty of Pro's who don't contend but have a Major Challenge in them


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I know 

Hence why I said about bringing the ranking points away from the players to the actual event
		
Click to expand...

The best players will always contend for the biggest prizes and not OWGR points so the rankings would be completely distorted.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			The best players will always contend for the biggest prizes and not OWGR points so the rankings would be completely distorted.
		
Click to expand...

Where as I believe a good number of players would chase the ranking points and play more events on other tours which would boost the events and bring in more sponsership due to bigger players playing.

Spread the ranking points which would IMO spread the world and start to remove the imbalance of the tours.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Marc Leishman didn't regulary contend on the PGA tour yet did in the Masters 

Chad Champbell

Even Mike Weir and he went and won the Masters

Until last year or year before Spieth wasn't regularly contending 

I have no doubt there are plenty of Pro's who don't contend but have a Major Challenge in them
		
Click to expand...

Both Campbell and Weir had won four times on the PGA Tour before winning a Major.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Where as I believe a good number of players would chase the ranking points and play more events on other tours which would boost the events and bring in more sponsership due to bigger players playing.

Spread the ranking points which would IMO spread the world and start to remove the imbalance of the tours.
		
Click to expand...

The history of the pro' game would seem to suggest they would not.


----------



## AirdrieHacker (Apr 4, 2016)

Definitely.

The masters is special, its actually enhanced by being played at the same venue, having a smaller field, etc.

I personally enjoy the fact that woosy, lyle and other previous winners return every year and have a go, history means so much to golf and these guys are a big part of Masters history.

I also believe its truly special to the players, many have cited as the one they want to win.

and c'mon who hasn't fantasised about slipping on that green jacket?


----------



## TheDiablo (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Marc Leishman didn't regulary contend on the PGA tour yet did in the Masters 

Chad Champbell

Even Mike Weir and he went and won the Masters

Until last year or year before Spieth wasn't regularly contending 

I have no doubt there are plenty of Pro's who don't contend but have a Major Challenge in them
		
Click to expand...

But they must have been winning/contending - otherwise they wouldn't have been invited to the Masters as it's apparently so difficult!!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			Both Campbell and Weir had won four times on the PGA Tour before winning a Major.
		
Click to expand...

And Leishman won once on the PGA - Fleetwood has won once already and Pepperall come close a number of times 

Both players have the ability to challenge in Majors - as do most of the Tour Pro Golfers


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			The history of the pro' game would seem to suggest they would not.
		
Click to expand...

Why has the ranking points been spread around evenly before ?


----------



## TheDiablo (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Marc Leishman didn't regulary contend on the PGA tour yet did in the Masters 

Chad Champbell

Even Mike Weir and he went and won the Masters

Until last year or year before Spieth wasn't regularly contending 

I have no doubt there are plenty of Pro's who don't contend but have a Major Challenge in them
		
Click to expand...

Jordan Spieth had 24 top 10s before he won the Masters! As you so often say, start backing stuff up with proof.


----------



## BTatHome (Apr 4, 2016)

Having equal ranking points across tours sounds obvious but then you'll get players jetting across to play the Asian tour event with the least quality field in order to gain ranking points to get into big events. It's bad enough when certain players go visiting the Far East to play in their events because of sponsor commitments.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

TheDiablo said:



			Jordan Spieth had 24 top 10s before he won the Masters! As you so often say, start backing stuff up with proof.
		
Click to expand...

2014 was his first time at the Masters 

Up until the middle of 2013 he was relying on sponser invites until he got his first win which gained him an invite to the rest of the comps and his career went from there.

The guys on the ET are contending on that tour but because of the weighting it doesn't gain them automatic invites. 

The point being players like Pepperell and Fleetwood and Pieters are talented players who shouldn't dimissed as potential major challengers because their situation is no different to Spieths a couple years back


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

BTatHome said:



			Having equal ranking points across tours sounds obvious but then you'll get players jetting across to play the Asian tour event with the least quality field in order to gain ranking points to get into big events. It's bad enough when certain players go visiting the Far East to play in their events because of sponsor commitments.
		
Click to expand...

I think initially it would start that way but in the end it would level out


----------



## Tongo (Apr 4, 2016)

BTatHome said:



			Having equal ranking points across tours sounds obvious but then you'll get players jetting across to play the Asian tour event with the least quality field in order to gain ranking points to get into big events. It's bad enough when certain players go visiting the Far East to play in their events because of sponsor commitments.
		
Click to expand...

Or players suffering from burn out cos they have to be forever travelling ridiculous mileage just to try and keep up.


----------



## TheDiablo (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's stronger because there is more money available so the top Pro's play for the money and they bring the ranking points with them 

IMO the ranking points system should be weighted per event regardless of the players playing 

Example - British Masters should be ranked the same as the Players 

BMW PGA the same as the PGA 

Fed Ex should get the same as the RTD

Regular tour events should be ranked the same both on the ET , PGA and Asia Tour 

One tour IMO shouldn't dominate 

Players shouldn't be forced to play on the PGA Tour to gain ranking points to allow them to enter the majors and WGC etc. 

Golf is dominated by the US PGA and things like the Fed Ex and IMO for the future of the game outside the US it needs to change.
		
Click to expand...

Should the same happen in football? Should each and every European country get 1 entry for the Champions League? Would that really make it a better spectacle and increase the quality of the tournament? 

Should each continent get an equal number of World Cup spots?

Saying 1 tour shouldnt dominate is the equivalent of saying the above. Would you really agree with the OWGR if someone won 5 times in Asia against weak fields that propelled them to number 1 in the world?? It would make a mockery of the whole system. The best players play in the PGA tour, and therefore rightly most ranking points are awarded there.

As for the Masters being a major, for me its a yes. Some valid points raised against its past, but then if the the Opens truly were Open then women would have always been able to qualify. So by using it's past inequality to beat the Masters with a stick, people surely have to apply the same logic to The Open - which is obviously pretty stupid.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Apr 4, 2016)

Maybe another poll could be:-

Would you tweak the masters, or introduce a new major?

I doubt more than 5% of golfers would go for the latter.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Why has the ranking points been spread around evenly before ?
		
Click to expand...

How many Americans bothered even coming to the Open before 1960 and the OWGR didn't exist before 1986.

Professional players will always gravitate towards the best prizes

Otherwise McIlroy, Rose, Garcia, Stenson etc; would still be regulars on the European Tour

It is self-perpetuating in that the prizes attract the players and the quality of the field will dictate the ranking points a player can achieve

Best footballers want to play in the PL because that is where the money is, same with golf players want to play where they can earn the most


----------



## Tongo (Apr 4, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			How many Americans bothered even coming to the Open before 1960 and the OWGR didn't exist before 1986.

Professional players will always gravitate towards the best prizes

Otherwise McIlroy, Rose, Garcia, Stenson etc; would still be regulars on the European Tour

It is self-perpetuating in that the prizes attract the players and the quality of the field will dictate the ranking points a player can achieve

Best footballers want to play in the PL because that is where the money is, same with golf players want to play where they can earn the most
		
Click to expand...

And despite all the inequalities and the bias toward the American pros Europe enjoyed a golden period from 1980-99. Yet in the age where more European players play on the PGA Tour none of them have managed to claim a green jacket. Maybe there was more hunger in the likes of Seve, Faldo, Woosie et al to go to the States and succeed.


----------



## TheDiablo (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			2014 was his first time at the Masters 

Up until the middle of 2013 he was relying on sponser invites until he got his first win which gained him an invite to the rest of the comps and his career went from there.

The guys on the ET are contending on that tour but because of the weighting it doesn't gain them automatic invites. 

The point being players like Pepperell and Fleetwood and Pieters are talented players who shouldn't dimissed as potential major challengers because their situation is no different to Spieths a couple years back
		
Click to expand...

Jordan Spieth got his PGA tour card in March 2013, aged 19, which had nothing to do with his first win.

Nobody is dismissing Pepperell, Fleetwood and Pieters as talented players. But they aren't talented enough to currently get in The Masters field. It would need to be extended to the point of it being a bit of a joke should Pepperell get in - he hasnt won anything and is well outside the Top 100. Fleetwood hasnt won in 18 months and is going through some horrible form.

Pieters I will give you - unfortunately for him the tournament probably came a couple of months too early. However - he had the same chance to get invited/qualify as anyone else - when the pressure was on him at the Arnold Palmer and WGC matchplay, knowing a Top 10 would probably get him in the field, he didnt perform. So he had the chance but wasnt good enough.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

TheDiablo said:



			Should the same happen in football? Should each and every European country get 1 entry for the Champions League? Would that really make it a better spectacle and increase the quality of the tournament? 

Should each continent get an equal number of World Cup spots?

Saying 1 tour shouldnt dominate is the equivalent of saying the above. Would you really agree with the OWGR if someone won 5 times in Asia against weak fields that propelled them to number 1 in the world?? It would make a mockery of the whole system. The best players play in the PGA tour, and therefore rightly most ranking points are awarded there.

As for the Masters being a major, for me its a yes. Some valid points raised against its past, but then if the the Opens truly were Open then women would have always been able to qualify. So by using it's past inequality to beat the Masters with a stick, people surely have to apply the same logic to The Open - which is obviously pretty stupid.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but think each sport should be treated in its own way - don't think it's comparable across different sports especially when the make up is so different 

As I said I believe the fields would balance themselves out and events would find their standing


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

MetalMickie said:



			How many Americans bothered even coming to the Open before 1960 and the OWGR didn't exist before 1986.

Professional players will always gravitate towards the best prizes

Otherwise McIlroy, Rose, Garcia, Stenson etc; would still be regulars on the European Tour

It is self-perpetuating in that the prizes attract the players and the quality of the field will dictate the ranking points a player can achieve

Best footballers want to play in the PL because that is where the money is, same with golf players want to play where they can earn the most
		
Click to expand...

So was the answer to my question - the ranking points haven't ever been spread around and based on the events as opposed to the players so it's hard to say exactly what the players would do


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

TheDiablo said:



			Jordan Spieth got his PGA tour card in March 2013, aged 19, which had nothing to do with his first win.

Nobody is dismissing Pepperell, Fleetwood and Pieters as talented players. But they aren't talented enough to currently get in The Masters field. It would need to be extended to the point of it being a bit of a joke should Pepperell get in - he hasnt won anything and is well outside the Top 100. Fleetwood hasnt won in 18 months and is going through some horrible form.

Pieters I will give you - unfortunately for him the tournament probably came a couple of months too early. However - he had the same chance to get invited/qualify as anyone else - when the pressure was on him at the Arnold Palmer and WGC matchplay, knowing a Top 10 would probably get him in the field, he didnt perform. So he had the chance but wasnt good enough.
		
Click to expand...

Spieth was given full playing rights after winning the John Deere in July 2013 

The changes j would like to make is add in qualfiying comps like the Open which gives players outside the Top 50 the chance to qualify because it's hard for them to accumulate World Ranking points because they don't play on the PGA Tour 

In total it would prob add another 10-12 players to the field from around the globe


----------



## Smiffy (Apr 4, 2016)

You know the thing that amazes me.....

Liverpoolphil has got 32 posts on this thread.....


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 4, 2016)

I really can't see what all this fuss is about. There are some factual errors (top twenty on the Asion OOM #67) and a lot of debate about it "not being fair" to up and coming golfers and European players. It is what it is, an invitational with major status and arguably did an awaful lot back in the day to raise the profile of golf in the US and in fact the viewing public probably bought in more because it was open to the best players of the day, held on the same course etc etc

In essence it's no different to a WGC event which is exclusive to the top 50/60/64 depending on format and gives no distinction to European or US players not in there by right or even to former winners. In which case should they also then be changed to become more accessible to all players. If you are an Aisian player, somehow being unfairly squeezed by world ranking points on their tour, it's simple. Play well enough to win the OOM, or come and compete on the other main tours and increase your world ranking. There is ample opportunity to qualify for the Open and US Open woroldwide

The Masters is unique. It won't change anytime soon an all this debate about it not being fair isn't going to make any difference and invites will always be issued purely on the whim of the Augusta committee. It never fails to produce fantastic golf. Again, the argument that there would be players not invited who'd have a real chance is mute. There same could be said of the field assembled and of any competition. Chances are, most on any given week won't make it, but sometimes we get these fairy tales and Augusta has produced it's share.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Apr 4, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I really can't see what all this fuss is about. There are some factual errors (top twenty on the Asion OOM #67) and a lot of debate about it "not being fair" to up and coming golfers and European players. It is what it is, an invitational with major status and arguably did an awaful lot back in the day to raise the profile of golf in the US and in fact the viewing public probably bought in more because it was open to the best players of the day, held on the same course etc etc

In essence it's no different to a WGC event which is exclusive to the top 50/60/64 depending on format and gives no distinction to European or US players not in there by right or even to former winners. In which case should they also then be changed to become more accessible to all players. If you are an Aisian player, somehow being unfairly squeezed by world ranking points on their tour, it's simple. Play well enough to win the OOM, or come and compete on the other main tours and increase your world ranking. There is ample opportunity to qualify for the Open and US Open woroldwide

The Masters is unique. It won't change anytime soon an all this debate about it not being fair isn't going to make any difference and invites will always be issued purely on the whim of the Augusta committee. It never fails to produce fantastic golf. Again, the argument that there would be players not invited who'd have a real chance is mute. There same could be said of the field assembled and of any competition. Chances are, most on any given week won't make it, but sometimes we get these fairy tales and Augusta has produced it's share.
		
Click to expand...


Agree 100%....and currently 86% of forum members think it should be a major and I suspect the vast majority of those would be quite happy with the way it is and the way it's always been. We can argue all day about "fairness", "regional qualifiers", "past winners", "contenders" etc.......but I'm off to flog my dead horse.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So was the answer to my question - the ranking points haven't ever been spread around and based on the events as opposed to the players so it's hard to say exactly what the players would do
		
Click to expand...

Not hard at all.

The best players in golf as in any professional sport will always go where the financial rewards are greatest and the OWGR points will take care of themselves.

Back in the mid-90's there was talk of Greg Norman and Fox TV starting a world tour but the other players were noticeably unenthusiastic.

Commissioner Finchem will protect the product that is the PGA Tour and ensure nothing is done that could weaken it. The administrators of the OWGR seem quite happy with the status quo so unless there is demand from either the sponsors or TV networks it is hard to see it ever changing.

As a group professional sportsmen seem notoriously change resistant unless they can see some personal advantage in that change so the big name players are unlikely to want to instigate the sort of change you are advocating.

As there is no real world governing body for the pro' game it is, therefore, difficult to see anything being too different in the future.


----------



## TheJezster (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but think each sport should be treated in its own way - don't think it's comparable across different sports especially when the make up is so different 

As I said I believe the fields would balance themselves out and events would find their standing
		
Click to expand...

But don't many people use the same sports when talking about Golf 'attire'???  You cant have it both ways, to suit your argument.

And in answer to your other point, so Spieth won a tournament within 3-4 months of getting his card?  How is that similar to Pepperill etc, they are not on the level of Spieth, who was clearly something special from the off.

Not saying they might not become great players, but if and when they do, they will qualify for the Masters.  Simple ;-)

I get that you have your view, and no opinions are incorrect, but you have a minority view and talking at people over and over isn't going to get them to change their mind.

The Masters is a major, possibly THE major, so if we were to lose one it sure as hell wouldn't be this one.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

Fyldewhite said:



			Agree 100%....and currently 86% of forum members think it should be a major and I suspect the vast majority of those would be quite happy with the way it is and the way it's always been. We can argue all day about "fairness", "regional qualifiers", "past winners", "contenders" etc.......but I'm off to flog my dead horse.
		
Click to expand...

I believe it's been a very good debate with lots of strong opinions been put across in a pleasant and mature way - it's a debate that has gone on for years and regardless of it makes a difference ( how many debates on here actually do make a difference ) it certainly shouldn't be stopped based on "it won't make a difference l"


----------



## GB72 (Apr 4, 2016)

Out of interest, who actually 'runs' The Masters. Is it classed as a PGA Tour event or is it purely run by the Augusta National committee. I only ask because when Tiger was up for disqualification, I am sure that the final decision to keep him in was made by the Augusta committee and not the PGA.


----------



## user2010 (Apr 4, 2016)

So can we expect the same thread trotted out this time next year, a la DelC?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

GB72 said:



			Out of interest, who actually 'runs' The Masters. Is it classed as a PGA Tour event or is it purely run by the Augusta National committee. I only ask because when Tiger was up for disqualification, I am sure that the final decision to keep him in was made by the Augusta committee and not the PGA.
		
Click to expand...

It's run by the Masters ( Augusta Committee )!


----------



## BTatHome (Apr 4, 2016)

Sorry but the idea that the tours will even out is just impossible to imagine in the real world. If there are three events around the world with Arnold hosting in the US, the Sicilian Open in Europe and the South Eastern Regional Masters in Kuala Lumpa, then it's fanciful to think the ranking points should be equal, as the overwhelming majority of quality players will be playing in the US. There is zero value in the ranking points being equal across the three events, and if anything it would devalue the rankings themselves .... which in turn would probably lead to even more invitational tournaments. Anybody travelling across the globe to play against a vastly weakened field would be ridiculed by everyone!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 4, 2016)

BTatHome said:



			Sorry but the idea that the tours will even out is just impossible to imagine in the real world. If there are three events around the world with Arnold hosting in the US, the Sicilian Open in Europe and the South Eastern Regional Masters in Kuala Lumpa, then it's fanciful to think the ranking points should be equal, as the overwhelming majority of quality players will be playing in the US. There is zero value in the ranking points being equal across the three events, and if anything it would devalue the rankings themselves .... which in turn would probably lead to even more invitational tournaments. Anybody travelling across the globe to play against a vastly weakened field would be ridiculed by everyone!
		
Click to expand...

I think what could happen is certain events could have equal standing and the schedule be sorted so that when events are held its rare that three comps on at the same time all hold the same ranking points 

So for example when the PGA at Wentworth is on that's the premier event that week and holds the most points 

Same when the Players is on or the Australian Open etc 

Each comp is weighted is comparable to its level - with each tour having a number of top rated events. Get the game more global 

Or even have a World Tour


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 4, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I think what could happen is certain events could have equal standing and the schedule be sorted so that when events are held its rare that three comps on at the same time all hold the same ranking points 

So for example when the PGA at Wentworth is on that's the premier event that week and holds the most points 

Same when the Players is on or the Australian Open etc 

Each comp is weighted is comparable to its level - with each tour having a number of top rated events. Get the game more global 

Or even have a World Tour
		
Click to expand...

Utopian dreaming that isn't ever going to work until there's some form of world tour and worldwide governing body (chances of me getting to Cat 1 are higher). It simply is what it is and will always be geared to getting the best players and the sponsors cash week in week out and the bottom line as others keep pointing out is that is invariably always going to be in the US with the exception of events like the PGA at Wentworth, one or two European tour events around the Open where players will come across and play a few events in Europe. While the WGC and three majors are in the US, players will always opt to play that tour unless they can break into the top fify another way to receive their invites to WGC, Masters, etc.


----------



## Ethan (Apr 4, 2016)

BTatHome said:



			Sorry but the idea that the tours will even out is just impossible to imagine in the real world. If there are three events around the world with Arnold hosting in the US, the Sicilian Open in Europe and the South Eastern Regional Masters in Kuala Lumpa, then it's fanciful to think the ranking points should be equal, as the overwhelming majority of quality players will be playing in the US. There is zero value in the ranking points being equal across the three events, and if anything it would devalue the rankings themselves .... which in turn would probably lead to even more invitational tournaments. Anybody travelling across the globe to play against a vastly weakened field would be ridiculed by everyone!
		
Click to expand...

Nobody said the ranking points should be equal each week. But if Masters places were awarded to winners of any event with a first place award of more than 50 points, say, that would being in 3 or 4 European Tour events and kick out a few of the rubbish PGA Tour events.


----------



## Ethan (Apr 4, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Utopian dreaming that isn't ever going to work until there's some form of world tour and worldwide governing body (chances of me getting to Cat 1 are higher). It simply is what it is and will always be geared to getting the best players and the sponsors cash week in week out and the bottom line as others keep pointing out is that is invariably always going to be in the US with the exception of events like the PGA at Wentworth, one or two European tour events around the Open where players will come across and play a few events in Europe. While the WGC and three majors are in the US, players will always opt to play that tour unless they can break into the top fify another way to receive their invites to WGC, Masters, etc.
		
Click to expand...

More chance of a World Tour than Cat 1, Homer, old chap. Now, Cat 3 .......


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 4, 2016)

Ethan said:



			More chance of a World Tour than Cat 1, Homer, old chap. Now, Cat 3 .......
		
Click to expand...

Indeed but struggling with a few health issues of late and to be honest just happy to be out and playing at the moment.


----------



## pokerjoke (Apr 4, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Indeed but struggling with a few health issues of late and to be honest just happy to be out and playing at the moment.
		
Click to expand...

You keep mentioning these health issues I hope they are not to serious,can you digress or not.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 4, 2016)

pokerjoke said:



			You keep mentioning these health issues I hope they are not to serious,can you digress or not.
		
Click to expand...

Prefer not to. Some on here are aware. Annoying that it's impinging on golf and practice and having a more detrimental effect than my usual mediocrity. A little worrying until I get full prognosis and plan of action next week


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 4, 2016)

louise_a said:



			I have always enjoyed looking forward to The Master more than any other bar The Open and the Ryder Cup, probably because it is on in the evening so can be watched after work but didn't go on much after midnight and was on the BBC. The course is always visually stunning too.
Not sure whether it ought o be a major though due to the selectiveness on the event.
Compulsive viewing though.
		
Click to expand...

I love watching the Masters - and my Mrs will often watch with me - especially final round - as she got caught up with me watching the 'Sandy' Masters.  We met on Feb 14th 1988 and for some reason she was still with me and up late with me watching the masters two months later.  My we were bouncing about the sofa after Sandy hit his shot to the 18th   Fun memories.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 4, 2016)

http://www.golfwrx.com/366440/the-20-players-who-can-actually-win-the-masters/


----------



## FairwayDodger (Apr 4, 2016)

TheDiablo said:



			Should the same happen in football? Should each and every European country get 1 entry for the Champions League?
		
Click to expand...

YES!!! Different thread though....


----------



## pokerjoke (Apr 4, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Prefer not to. Some on here are aware. Annoying that it's impinging on golf and practice and having a more detrimental effect than my usual mediocrity. A little worrying until I get full prognosis and plan of action next week
		
Click to expand...

Hope it goes well for you:thup:


----------



## IainP (Apr 4, 2016)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I love watching the Masters - and my Mrs will often watch with me - especially final round - as she got caught up with me watching the 'Sandy' Masters.  We met on Feb 14th 1988 and for some reason she was still with me and up late with me watching the masters two months later.  My we were bouncing about the sofa after Sandy hit his shot to the 18th   Fun memories.
		
Click to expand...

Really like to watch it also, and that one is a formative golf memory for me as well.
When pondering this thread/poll I did ask myself would I be so up for watching if it was in August though - how much of it is the 'start of the season' factor?

Also, most regular tournaments are on same course every year. Whereas the other majors rotate. Has long been said that not rotating rules out a group of players every year before they tee up.


----------



## upsidedown (Apr 4, 2016)

Yes it should be and for me is the best of all of them.

You know the course, well the back nine so well for all those years of viewing , you know where the flags will be come Sunday, you know how the putts break , the wind swirls round Amen Corner, even down to the same theme music. It's like slipping on your favourite pair of slippers 
The new season is upon us


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 5, 2016)

upsidedown said:



			Yes it should be and for me is the best of all of them.

You know the course, well the back nine so well for all those years of viewing , you know where the flags will be come Sunday, you know how the putts break , the wind swirls round Amen Corner, even down to the same theme music. It's like slipping on your favourite pair of slippers 
The new season is upon us 

Click to expand...

Why don't we know the front nine that well though? Oh, I remember, they wouldn't let the tv show it for years and years, and it's not as pretty, or memorable. Jumped up idiots in Blazers running major comps, and dictating to the public what they can and cannot watch.

It sends out such a good message about the inclusiveness of golf as a sport.


----------



## Imurg (Apr 5, 2016)

murphthemog said:



			Why don't we know the front nine that well though? Oh, I remember, they wouldn't let the tv show it for years and years, and it's not as pretty, or memorable. Jumped up idiots in Blazers running major comps, and dictating to the public what they can and cannot watch.

It sends out such a good message about the inclusiveness of golf as a sport.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed.
I can picture every hole on the back 9 as I've seen them dozens and dozens of times over the years...
I can picture the 2nd hole, mainly due to Louis's albatross and PhillyMick and the leaf on the line but that's all...can't picture 1 or 3-9 at all...


----------



## upsidedown (Apr 5, 2016)

murphthemog said:



			Why don't we know the front nine that well though? Oh, I remember, they wouldn't let the tv show it for years and years, and it's not as pretty, or memorable. Jumped up idiots in Blazers running major comps, and dictating to the public what they can and cannot watch.

It sends out such a good message about the inclusiveness of golf as a sport.
		
Click to expand...

Fair comment I'd like to see more of the front 9 too but how many holes on the front 9 at TOC can you remember, having not played there not many for me but can recall the finishing stretch .


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 5, 2016)

It's the first thing that should change 

As with all the over the majors 

There should be wall to wall coverage from the first tee shot to the last shot

Only hole I can recall on the front 9 is the one Louis got an eagle on


----------



## Ethan (Apr 5, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Prefer not to. Some on here are aware. Annoying that it's impinging on golf and practice and having a more detrimental effect than my usual mediocrity. A little worrying until I get full prognosis and plan of action next week
		
Click to expand...

Hope it is nothing too serious.


----------



## Duckster (Apr 5, 2016)

Imurg said:



			Agreed.
I can picture every hole on the back 9 as I've seen them dozens and dozens of times over the years...
I can picture the 2nd hole, mainly due to Louis's albatross and PhillyMick and the leaf on the line but that's all...can't picture 1 or 3-9 at all...
		
Click to expand...

Thing is, it's their comp and it's their rules.  I can remember reading that the reason they don't show much of the front 9 (till Sunday) is also due to making it seem more exclusive to the people there and also creating an air of mystery for the viewers.  Whereas some may not like it, I think this is a great idea and it works.  How many people have Augusta at the top of their bucket list?

As for the other holes on the front 9, 4, 6, 7 & 8 are all stand out holes which are given quite a bit of coverage.  It's really only 1, 2 & 3 that they don't show too much of.  I will guarantee you'll remember them when you see them.


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 5, 2016)

Their comp, their rules, but it's a major? No, that's plain wrong. They need to be told, in no uncertain terms to allow wall to wall coverage.

Would you be happy if they limited the coverage to just the 18th, on Friday only? No. It should never be their rules.


----------



## Duckster (Apr 5, 2016)

murphthemog said:



			Their comp, their rules, but it's a major? No, that's plain wrong. They need to be told, in no uncertain terms to allow wall to wall coverage.

Would you be happy if they limited the coverage to just the 18th, on Friday only? No. It should never be their rules.
		
Click to expand...

Wrong?  No it's not.  It's their comp!  This a club synonymous with have strict rules which have been around for longer than there has even been a concept of a "major" and are now classed as tradition. 

Do you actually think that the Masters belongs to the people?  That there there is some underlying right that you have to be able to watch wall to wall coverage?  You are living in a dream world if that's the case.

This is a conscious decision that Augusta have made and I think they have it right.  It keeps the mystique of the place and the tournament going.


----------



## patricks148 (Apr 5, 2016)

No.

its a comp run by and exclusive members club with its own agenda. its only been going since the 30's so its not that long, so not even a historical comp like the others.

No reason it can't be on the tour , but def not a major.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 5, 2016)

Duckster said:



			Wrong?  No it's not.  It's their comp!  This a club synonymous with have strict rules which have been around for longer than there has even been a concept of a "major" and are now classed as tradition. 

Do you actually think that the Masters belongs to the people?  That there there is some underlying right that you have to be able to watch wall to wall coverage?  You are living in a dream world if that's the case.

This is a conscious decision that Augusta have made and I think they have it right.  It keeps the mystique of the place and the tournament going.
		
Click to expand...

The problem for me is golf needs to show itself to more opening to more people - all the big major sporting events are showed to whole world wall to wall so people don't miss anything - they get to see the whole excitement and maybe be grabbed by it - youngsters watch it then go and recreate something with their mates. 

With the Masters the coverage is limited , they send out a message that says - we aren't going to open up to everyone and you get what we decide - imagine if they did that in Tennis and people only got to see the last two sets of a final or semi etc or you only saw the second half of the World Cup final etc 

The sport is supposed to be open to all and trying to show the world that it isn't full of stuffy old men being restrictive to the rest of the world - The Masters right now counters that


----------



## freddielong (Apr 5, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Only hole I can recall on the front 9 is the one Louis got an eagle on
		
Click to expand...

Seriously the only hole - so you can't remember the dog leg par 4 9th which goes down hill at the dogleg  then steeply up hill so that the ball can spin off the front of the green (Greg Norman), or the 8th par 5 up hill with a big bunker on the right hand side of the fairway at about 300 yrds with a dog leg at the end with big banks around the green, or the 7th a really straight par 4 with a green surrounded by bunkers and heavily sloped front to back, the Par 3 6th with a big slope in the green and big deep bunker short right and a funny shaped green like a pinched in triangle, or the 5 th a dog leg left par 4 with bunkers on the left hand side of the fairway, or the downhill par 3 4th with its heavily bunkered green, or the 3rd an almost drivable par 4 with a ridiculous sloping fast little green that the pros can get too close to from the tee so a lot of them use a long iron which brings a couple of bunkers into play, or the heavily down hill par 5 second which doglegs viciously to the left and has a small triangular green with big bunkers leaving a really small entrance to the green, or the first a fairly innocuous par 4 dog leg to the right with a couple of bunkers at the dogleg on the right hand side of the fairway and a green that Tiger hit a 15ft putt that finished off the green the first time he played in a competitive round.

Or were you just trying to make a point that didnt exist.


----------



## NWJocko (Apr 5, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The problem for me is golf needs to show itself to more opening to more people - all the big major sporting events are showed to whole world wall to wall so people don't miss anything - they get to see the whole excitement and maybe be grabbed by it - youngsters watch it then go and recreate something with their mates. 

With the Masters the coverage is limited , they send out a message that says - we aren't going to open up to everyone and you get what we decide -* imagine if they did that in Tennis and people only got to see the last two sets of a final or semi etc or you only saw the second half of the World Cup final etc* 

The sport is supposed to be open to all and trying to show the world that it isn't full of stuffy old men being restrictive to the rest of the world - The Masters right now counters that
		
Click to expand...

Re the bit in bold, you see every shot of the leaders last couple of rounds don't you?

I know when McIlroy blew up a few years back I watched him tee off the 1st.

The coverage could be more on the first couple of days, but then you couldn't see all the golf from the rearranged final day of the Open last year (and not sure they're ever on live for the back markers starting on the weekend?)


----------



## Dan2501 (Apr 5, 2016)

And yet despite missing parts of the coverage it still has over double the amount of viewers than any of the other 3 Majors in the US. 14.2m watched The Masters in the US last year, 6.7m watched the US Open and PGA Championship. I think they have it spot on, whatever they're doing is working great.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 5, 2016)

freddielong said:



			Seriously the only hole - so you can't remember the dog leg par 4 9th which goes down hill at the dogleg  then steeply up hill so that the ball can spin off the front of the green (Greg Norman), or the 8th par 5 up hill with a big bunker on the right hand side of the fairway at about 300 yrds with a dog leg at the end with big banks around the green, or the 7th a really straight par 4 with a green surrounded by bunkers and heavily sloped front to back, the Par 3 6th with a big slope in the green and big deep bunker short right and a funny shaped green like a pinched in triangle, or the 5 th a dog leg left par 4 with bunkers on the left hand side of the fairway, or the downhill par 3 4th with its heavily bunkered green, or the 3rd an almost drivable par 4 with a ridiculous sloping fast little green that the pros can get too close to from the tee so a lot of them use a long iron which brings a couple of bunkers into play, or the heavily down hill par 5 second which doglegs viciously to the left and has a small triangular green with big bunkers leaving a really small entrance to the green, or the first a fairly innocuous par 4 dog leg to the right with a couple of bunkers at the dogleg on the right hand side of the fairway and a green that Tiger hit a 15ft putt that finished off the green the first time he played in a competitive round.

Or were you just trying to make a point that didnt exist.
		
Click to expand...

I can only ever remember on the front 9 the hole that Louis got his 2 on the par 5

Can remember the 11th onwards , can't remember the 17th though


----------



## freddielong (Apr 5, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I can only ever remember on the front 9 the hole that Louis got his 2 on the par 5

Can remember the 11th onwards , can't remember the 17th though
		
Click to expand...

Maybe you should visit your GP then


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 5, 2016)

freddielong said:



			Seriously the only hole - so you can't remember the dog leg par 4 9th which goes down hill at the dogleg  then steeply up hill so that the ball can spin off the front of the green (Greg Norman), or the 8th par 5 up hill with a big bunker on the right hand side of the fairway at about 300 yrds with a dog leg at the end with big banks around the green, or the 7th a really straight par 4 with a green surrounded by bunkers and heavily sloped front to back, the Par 3 6th with a big slope in the green and big deep bunker short right and a funny shaped green like a pinched in triangle, or the 5 th a dog leg left par 4 with bunkers on the left hand side of the fairway, or the downhill par 3 4th with its heavily bunkered green, or the 3rd an almost drivable par 4 with a ridiculous sloping fast little green that the pros can get too close to from the tee so a lot of them use a long iron which brings a couple of bunkers into play, or the heavily down hill par 5 second which doglegs viciously to the left and has a small triangular green with big bunkers leaving a really small entrance to the green, or the first a fairly innocuous par 4 dog leg to the right with a couple of bunkers at the dogleg on the right hand side of the fairway and a green that Tiger hit a 15ft putt that finished off the green the first time he played in a competitive round.

Or were you just trying to make a point that didnt exist.
		
Click to expand...

Always coverage of the top players teeing off, especially at the weekend so the first hole often shown


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 5, 2016)

freddielong said:



			Maybe you should visit your GP then
		
Click to expand...

Pardon me ? Sorry for not remembering every single hole on a course I have never played and holes i rarely see


----------



## TheDiablo (Apr 5, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The problem for me is golf needs to show itself to more opening to more people - all the big major sporting events are showed to whole world wall to wall so people don't miss anything - they get to see the whole excitement and maybe be grabbed by it - youngsters watch it then go and recreate something with their mates. 

With the Masters the coverage is limited , they send out a message that says - we aren't going to open up to everyone and you get what we decide - *imagine if they did that in Tennis and people only got to see the last two sets of a final or semi etc or you only saw the second half of the World Cup final etc *

The sport is supposed to be open to all and trying to show the world that it isn't full of stuffy old men being restrictive to the rest of the world - The Masters right now counters that
		
Click to expand...

Haven't you specifically said (in this thread) that golf shouldn't compare itself to other sports? So surely that point is irrelevant to you?


----------



## Duckster (Apr 5, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The problem for me is golf needs to show itself to more opening to more people - all the big major sporting events are showed to whole world wall to wall so people don't miss anything - they get to see the whole excitement and maybe be grabbed by it - youngsters watch it then go and recreate something with their mates. 

With the Masters the coverage is limited , they send out a message that says - we aren't going to open up to everyone and you get what we decide - imagine if they did that in Tennis and people only got to see the last two sets of a final or semi etc or you only saw the second half of the World Cup final etc 

The sport is supposed to be open to all and trying to show the world that it isn't full of stuffy old men being restrictive to the rest of the world - The Masters right now counters that
		
Click to expand...

Do you get to see every court at Wimbledon?  Or just a select few?

People may look at the Masters and think its not doing golf any good, however I suspect that the viewing figures counteract that.  People who know nothing about golf have heard of the Masters, know what a Green Jacket represents.  

Personally I simply do not see anything wrong with the way that The Masters do things.  I think they are adapting nicely (they didn't show any of the front 9 at all till about the 90's!) and are IMHO leading the way with their online set up and apps and social media coverage.  It is like the rest of The Masters, it's done very well.

The media love the place, the "patrons" (granted I hate that) love the place, they nicely escort people from the premises if they are caught shouting stuff out.

For me, there's also the "Joycie effect".  My mum (Joyce) will probably watch the last bit of The Open, however she'll happily sit through all 4 days of the Masters.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 5, 2016)

TheDiablo said:



			Haven't you specifically said (in this thread) that golf shouldn't compare itself to other sports? So surely that point is irrelevant to you?
		
Click to expand...

That's fair enough.


----------



## TheDiablo (Apr 5, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



*Sorry but think each sport should be treated in its own way - don't think it's comparable across different sports especially when the make up is so different *

As I said I believe the fields would balance themselves out and events would find their standing
		
Click to expand...

Yep, thought so. So as the make up of the sport is so different it isnt comparable. So why later compare it to other sports?

Edit: Just seen your post above - fair enough for accepting this, lets move on!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 5, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Pardon me ? Sorry for not remembering every single hole on a course I have never played and holes i rarely see
		
Click to expand...

Actually with you on this one - I was thinking just last might that I couldn't recall the 1st hole - then found I didn't have any impressions of any of the front 9 (in my mind I worked backwards from Amen corner and didn't get very far)


----------



## Tongo (Apr 5, 2016)

Imurg said:



			Agreed.
I can picture every hole on the back 9 as I've seen them dozens and dozens of times over the years...
I can picture the 2nd hole, mainly due to Louis's albatross and PhillyMick and the leaf on the line but that's all...can't picture 1 or 3-9 at all...
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			It's the first thing that should change 

As with all the over the majors 

There should be wall to wall coverage from the first tee shot to the last shot

Only hole I can recall on the front 9 is the one Louis got an eagle on
		
Click to expand...




freddielong said:



			Seriously the only hole - so you can't remember the dog leg par 4 9th which goes down hill at the dogleg  then steeply up hill so that the ball can spin off the front of the green (Greg Norman), or the 8th par 5 up hill with a big bunker on the right hand side of the fairway at about 300 yrds with a dog leg at the end with big banks around the green, or the 7th a really straight par 4 with a green surrounded by bunkers and heavily sloped front to back, the Par 3 6th with a big slope in the green and big deep bunker short right and a funny shaped green like a pinched in triangle, or the 5 th a dog leg left par 4 with bunkers on the left hand side of the fairway, or the downhill par 3 4th with its heavily bunkered green, or the 3rd an almost drivable par 4 with a ridiculous sloping fast little green that the pros can get too close to from the tee so a lot of them use a long iron which brings a couple of bunkers into play, or the heavily down hill par 5 second which doglegs viciously to the left and has a small triangular green with big bunkers leaving a really small entrance to the green, or the first a fairly innocuous par 4 dog leg to the right with a couple of bunkers at the dogleg on the right hand side of the fairway and a green that Tiger hit a 15ft putt that finished off the green the first time he played in a competitive round.

Or were you just trying to make a point that didnt exist.
		
Click to expand...

Ditto Freddie.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 5, 2016)

Duckster said:



			Do you get to see every court at Wimbledon?  Or just a select few?

People may look at the Masters and think its not doing golf any good, however I suspect that the viewing figures counteract that.  People who know nothing about golf have heard of the Masters, know what a Green Jacket represents.  

Personally I simply do not see anything wrong with the way that The Masters do things.  I think they are adapting nicely (they didn't show any of the front 9 at all till about the 90's!) and are IMHO leading the way with their online set up and apps and social media coverage.  It is like the rest of The Masters, it's done very well.

The media love the place, the "patrons" (granted I hate that) love the place, they nicely escort people from the premises if they are caught shouting stuff out.

For me, there's also the "Joycie effect".  My mum (Joyce) will probably watch the last bit of The Open, however she'll happily sit through all 4 days of the Masters.
		
Click to expand...

On red button you can pretty much take your pick of watching every court 

I think more should be shown instead of 3 hours per night with a bit more on the final day. A lot of times a number of players have already completed their rounds by the time the live pictures start on the Thursday and Friday.


----------



## Tongo (Apr 5, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I can only ever remember on the front 9 the hole that Louis got his 2 on the par 5

Can remember the 11th onwards , can't remember the 17th though
		
Click to expand...

You can't remember the 10th? Where Hoch missed that short putt, Bubba played that amazing shot out of the trees and Scott won his Masters a couple of years ago?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Apr 5, 2016)

I think it's a great tournament despite the BS regarding not showing all of on TV (mystique my arse, just being awkward and old fashioned for the sake of it more like) , calling spectators 'patrons' and the immense amount of obsequiousness that seems to be prominent in the media coverage. 

Get rid of all that and it would be even better, but I really enjoy it anyway.

As for picturing the holes then I play it on Tiger Woods on the PS3 and that helps.


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 5, 2016)

Wimbledon has most of the other courts on the red button, in fuzzy vision.

OK,  the masters now has amen corner in fuzzy, and two selected groups also. Wow, how flipping generous of them.

It's a major, show it all. If people aren't interested, they won't watch it. But they will never find out.

Oh, and it's not on my bucket list. I think without the crowds, it would be an empty soulless patch of grass, with not a lot of definition. Many of the greens are in the middle of nowhere. Not my style of course at all.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 5, 2016)

Tongo said:



			You can't remember the 10th? Where Hoch missed that short putt, Bubba played that amazing shot out of the trees and Scott won his Masters a couple of years ago?
		
Click to expand...

Correct I can't remember the layout of the hole - sorry.


----------



## upsidedown (Apr 5, 2016)

I read the replies that want more coverage and to me it smacks of the " I want it now culture "  that unfortunately we now seem to be living in. Having been brought up when there was very little live sport on the tele and radio was king I do think that sometimes less is more and this how I see the Masters. The less I see of it the more I want to watch it.


----------



## Tongo (Apr 5, 2016)

upsidedown said:



			I read the replies that want more coverage and to me it smacks of the " I want it now culture "  that unfortunately we now seem to be living in. Having been brought up when there was very little live sport on the tele and radio was king I do think that sometimes less is more and this how I see the Masters. The less I see of it the more I want to watch it.
		
Click to expand...

I agree. But be prepared for a backlash to your comment from people who want the coverage to start the moment the first player gets out of bed and scratches his derriere!


----------



## Duckster (Apr 5, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			On red button you can pretty much take your pick of watching every court 

I think more should be shown instead of 3 hours per night with a bit more on the final day. A lot of times a number of players have already completed their rounds by the time the live pictures start on the Thursday and Friday.
		
Click to expand...

And on the red button for the masters you can watch featured groups do most of their rounds or sit down and watch the groups come through Amen Corner.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 5, 2016)

Duckster said:



			And on the red button for the masters you can watch featured groups do most of their rounds or sit down and watch the groups come through Amen Corner.
		
Click to expand...

Yep and a lot of times the red button is showing nothing at they wait for the groups to come through and last year the red button still didn't show them on a lot of holes through the front 9


----------



## freddielong (Apr 5, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Pardon me ? Sorry for not remembering every single hole on a course I have never played and holes i rarely see
		
Click to expand...

Ok, sorry but I do not believe you.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 5, 2016)

patricks148 said:



			No.

its a comp run by and exclusive members club with its own agenda. its only been going since the 30's so its not that long, so not even a historical comp like the others.

No reason it can't be on the tour , but def not a major.
		
Click to expand...

In its current strokeplay format the USPGA has only been going since the 50's and is only 20 years older than the Masters in any event.

As I have said before, to me, only the competitors themselves can truly judge if an event is a Major. There is no world governing body to dictate the criteria.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Apr 5, 2016)

upsidedown said:



			I read the replies that want more coverage and to me it smacks of the " I want it now culture "  that unfortunately we now seem to be living in. Having been brought up when there was very little live sport on the tele and radio was king I do think that sometimes less is more and this how I see the Masters. The less I see of it the more I want to watch it.
		
Click to expand...

But the trouble is that if the game is going to attract new viewers in 2016 when like it or not, everything is available straight away, then they are probably going to find the concept of not being able to see all the action of a major sporting event live at best a bit strange. And at worst bloody annoying and not worth bothering with.

Harking back to 1983 is probably not the best media strategy. IMHO.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 5, 2016)

upsidedown said:



			I read the replies that want more coverage and to me it smacks of the " I want it now culture "  that unfortunately we now seem to be living in. Having been brought up when there was very little live sport on the tele and radio was king I do think that sometimes less is more and this how I see the Masters. The less I see of it the more I want to watch it.
		
Click to expand...

The less that is shown that the less people that get to see the sport - that doesn't help the sport attract people.

Yes we are very lucky now that we can see so much sport than we used to in the past 

The Olympics in 2012 helped boost so many sports with it being on telly 

Golf viewing has already been reduced over the past 12 months with Sky picking up all the golf. 

Golf is reducing in numbers - need to find a way to increase numbers - having limited exposure of the first major of the year doesn't help IMO.


----------



## upsidedown (Apr 5, 2016)

Yes but there is more coverage of The Masters than there was 10 years ago but still golfers numbers have fallen so that doesn't stack up. Falling numbers is down to any number of reasons.Lack of coverage is just one possible cause


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 5, 2016)

upsidedown said:



			Yes but there is more coverage of The Masters than there was 10 years ago but still golfers numbers have fallen so that doesn't stack up. Falling numbers is down to any number of reasons.Lack of coverage is just one possible cause
		
Click to expand...

Well less people are able to watch the Masters on the Thursday and Friday due to it moving to sky and the amount of extra coverage isn't a great deal. You still manage to miss half the field on both days. But yes coverage is prob only a small part in reduction of participants


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 5, 2016)

upsidedown said:



			I read the replies that want more coverage and to me it smacks of the " I want it now culture "  that unfortunately we now seem to be living in. Having been brought up when there was very little live sport on the tele and radio was king I do think that sometimes less is more and this how I see the Masters. The less I see of it the more I want to watch it.
		
Click to expand...

But if it was on, you wouldn't be forced at gun point to watch it. You could restrict your viewing, or follow it on the wireless.

For those selfish few who do want to climb out of the 1950s, proper coverage is a must for any major sporting event.


----------



## Deleted member 18588 (Apr 5, 2016)

The effect of TV coverage upon participation levels is often exaggerated. 

I believe that despite wall to wall coverage of Wimbledon each year the number of active players has fallen and since London 2012 there has been a fall in people playing all sports.

It would seem we are increasingly a nation of armchair sports enthusiasts.


----------



## Tongo (Apr 5, 2016)

upsidedown said:



			Yes but there is more coverage of The Masters than there was 10 years ago but still golfers numbers have fallen so that doesn't stack up. *Falling numbers is down to any number of reasons.Lack of coverage is just one possible cause*

Click to expand...

Indeed. The sport with the most marked increase in this country  in recent years (cycling) cant be contributed to TV coverage. The TdF has been the only major event consistently covered for decades and is still the only major event of the main cycling tour / calendar to be covered.


----------



## USER1999 (Apr 5, 2016)

Tongo said:



			Indeed. The sport with the most marked increase in this country  in recent years (cycling) cant be contributed to TV coverage. The TdF has been the only major event consistently covered for decades and is still the only major event of the main cycling tour / calendar to be covered.
		
Click to expand...

I take it you don't have Eurosport?


----------



## pokerjoke (Apr 5, 2016)

upsidedown said:



			Yes but there is more coverage of The Masters than there was 10 years ago but still golfers numbers have fallen so that doesn't stack up. Falling numbers is down to any number of reasons.Lack of coverage is just one possible cause
		
Click to expand...

I agree there are loads of reasons.

We have unfortunately had 3 deaths this year that play in a group of about 16 or so and none of these lovely guys has had his place taken by anyone.
It seems there are no 25 -35 year olds coming into the game and its probably down to an age where they are still active in other sports.
Yes you will get some that retire from football or rugby etc but where are all the youngsters.
A major problem as I see it is the weather and our short golf season they just cant get out and practice and take it seriously.


----------



## Tongo (Apr 5, 2016)

murphthemog said:



			I take it you don't have Eurosport?
		
Click to expand...

Nope. However I remember watching cycling aplenty on Eurosport during the mid to late 90's when the sport was guffawed at in this country. Their coverage isn't behind the upsurge. The likes of Bradley Wiggins and Chris Hoy, and their successes, are more likely to be why cycling has taken off.


----------



## Slab (Apr 5, 2016)

murphthemog said:



			Wimbledon has most of the other courts on the red button, in fuzzy vision.

OK,  the masters now has amen corner in fuzzy, and two selected groups also. Wow, how flipping generous of them.

It's a major, show it all. If people aren't interested, they won't watch it. But they will never find out.

*Oh, and it's not on my bucket list. I think without the crowds, it would be an empty soulless patch of grass, with not a lot of definition. Many of the greens are in the middle of nowhere. Not my style of course at all*.
		
Click to expand...

With you on this, I saw online pics & video, google maps etc taken out of season and without grandstands, its not even close to the same and soooo much (hazard free) space around many greens


----------



## TheJezster (Apr 5, 2016)

Most of the major tours are on tv these days, both sky and eurosport.

That's something which cant be said isn't covered, cycling coverage has grown massively over the last few years.  And long may it continue


----------



## Tongo (Apr 5, 2016)

murphthemog said:



			Wimbledon has most of the other courts on the red button, in fuzzy vision.

OK,  the masters now has amen corner in fuzzy, and two selected groups also. Wow, how flipping generous of them.

It's a major, show it all. If people aren't interested, they won't watch it. But they will never find out.

Oh, and it's not on my bucket list. *I think without the crowds, it would be an empty soulless patch of grass, with not a lot of definition. *Many of the greens are in the middle of nowhere. Not my style of course at all.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Bobby Jones designed the course thinking with vast crowds and grandstands in mind. 

As for definition, plenty of players have said that television doesn't do justice to how hilly the course is.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Apr 5, 2016)

You can look at it another way. I'm over in the US now and you could see live nationwide coverage of some 10 year olds putting and chipping on one hole at Augusta. But in one of the most anticipated masters in decades you can't see the Pro's play half the course on 2 days in the proper tournament. Does that seem right?


----------



## patricks148 (Apr 5, 2016)

Slab said:



			With you on this, I saw online pics & video, google maps etc taken out of season and without grandstands, its not even close to the same and soooo much (hazard free) space around many greens
		
Click to expand...

a couple of guys in our roll up have played it and both described it as " a bit of a field" without the crowds and stands, bith said they where bitterly disappointed.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 5, 2016)

I know some people that have played it - said nothing but good things about it. Very quiet , immaculate condition , greens quick , felt special but didnt wow them


----------



## Duckster (Apr 5, 2016)

Tongo said:



			I'm not sure Bobby Jones designed the course thinking with vast crowds and grandstands in mind. 

As for definition, plenty of players have said that television doesn't do justice to how hilly the course is.
		
Click to expand...

Andrew Cotter walked the course yesterday with a GPS and posted the graph on his twitter feed.

https://twitter.com/MrAndrewCotter

Looks like it's about 80m between high point near the clubhouse and low point down on the 12th green!


----------



## garyinderry (Apr 5, 2016)

The gnawing anticipation waiting for the coverage to start is part of the package. 

Masters foreplay if you will.


----------



## BTatHome (Apr 5, 2016)

I can believe that participation and interest in the sport would be curtailed by only sky showing coverage (viewing figures for golf and f1 prove this) but I can't believe for one second that people are turning away because they don't get to see all of the shots on all of the holes. Fine to be upset about it, and to want more, but to think that people are turning away because of it is just not believable.


----------



## Duckster (Apr 5, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I know some people that have played it - said nothing but good things about it. Very quiet , immaculate condition , greens quick , felt special but didnt wow them
		
Click to expand...

Lad who was a member at my place has played it a few times and says it's his favourite course.  Granted he played it in The Masters.


----------



## Snelly (Apr 5, 2016)

No it should not be.

Not least because there is no Ladies event.  


As an aside, I disagree with all those who say the past champions should not be allowed to play.  I think it is great that they can and I always enjoy seeing them.  To say they are taking up places for young pros is utter rubbish.  They are there because they earned their place.  End of story.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Apr 5, 2016)

garyinderry said:



			The gnawing anticipation waiting for the coverage to start is part of the package. 

Masters foreplay if you will.
		
Click to expand...

Foreplay? I've vaguely heard of it, but I thought that was just for women?


----------



## Imurg (Apr 5, 2016)

Tongo said:



			I agree. But be prepared for a backlash to your comment from people who want the coverage to start the moment the first player gets out of bed and scratches his derriere!
		
Click to expand...

Oh, that's already happening....Days and days of build up, finding things to fill the hours during which nothing is going on. I'm glad I'm working all week.

And I can't picture in my mind, right now, any hole on the front 9 except the 2nd, whereas I can see the back 9 clearly. And find it quite sad that people feel the need to not believe it. I'm sure when I see them I'll remember them but that's not then point. The point is I can't see them now.


----------



## IainP (Apr 5, 2016)

Snelly said:



			As an aside, I disagree with all those who say the past champions should not be allowed to play.  I think it is great that they can and I always enjoy seeing them.  To say they are taking up places for young pros is utter rubbish.  They are there because they earned their place.  End of story.
		
Click to expand...

I agree is it good to see them. It is a subjective one. Perhaps some people feel it is overdone more at the Masters, and of course their total field size is typically smaller - so the ratio can feel out maybe. 
Is it a field of 89 this year? Against often over 150 for the Opens?


----------



## Tongo (Apr 5, 2016)

Snelly said:



			No it should not be.

*Not least because there is no Ladies event. * 


As an aside, I disagree with all those who say the past champions should not be allowed to play.  I think it is great that they can and I always enjoy seeing them.  To say they are taking up places for young pros is utter rubbish.  They are there because they earned their place.  End of story.
		
Click to expand...

Does that mean that those ladies majors where there is no male equivalent also dont count?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 5, 2016)

Imurg said:



			Oh, that's already happening....Days and days of build up, finding things to fill the hours during which nothing is going on. I'm glad I'm working all week.

And I can't picture in my mind, right now, any hole on the front 9 except the 2nd, whereas I can see the back 9 clearly. And find it quite sad that people feel the need to not believe it. I'm sure when I see them I'll remember them but that's not then point. The point is I can't see them now.
		
Click to expand...

At your age there's plenty you can't picture in your mind :rofl:. The first usually gets shown a bit over the first two days. To me, all this is irrelevant and it's case of simply getting what we're given. The Masters committee still think drip feeding the coverage over the first two days heightens expectation for the weekend. That won't change and so I'll sit down on Thursday and relish every bit of the coverage


----------



## Jimaroid (Apr 5, 2016)

patricks148 said:



			a couple of guys in our roll up have played it and both described it as " a bit of a field" without the crowds and stands, bith said they where bitterly disappointed.
		
Click to expand...

Saw this on Poulter's Twitter...

[video=youtube;eakOeT3MLY8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eakOeT3MLY8[/video]

And it looks like a big open field. I still wouldn't say no.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 5, 2016)

Actually that presents possibly a good idea - bag cam ? 

One of our swindle members have a camera mounted on his bag to film the round ? Maybe the players could have something like that on their bag ?


----------



## JP58 (Apr 5, 2016)

For me definitely no, some of the reasons have already been mentioned on here re the way its run and its attitudes, but for me its because its played on the same parkland course with tricked up greens, dyed water, no rough and fairways that even Bubba Watson can't miss ! Its boring !

The reason the pros say they love it is because if anyone says anything close to being critical they run the risk of not being invited back, the "good ol boys" don't take kindly to complaints.
Its is the youngest of all the majors (1934) to me that is not a major that should be supported by the comment of its "history"


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 5, 2016)

JP58 said:



			For me definitely no, some of the reasons have already been mentioned on here re the way its run and its attitudes, but for me its because its played on the same parkland course with tricked up greens, dyed water, no rough and fairways that even Bubba Watson can't miss ! Its boring !

The reason the pros say they love it is because if anyone says anything close to being critical they run the risk of not being invited back, the "good ol boys" don't take kindly to complaints.
Its is the youngest of all the majors (1934) to me that is not a major that should be supported by the comment of its "history"
		
Click to expand...

A balanced and reasonable argument. However it's one I disagree with. Some of the fairways aren't that wide, especially given the cambers and it rewards those who can get their approaches into the right place as opposed to just shoot for the pin you see on tour most weeks. I don't know many, including those who won't get an invite again, who have ever had too much to say negatively so I do think by and large most pros like the opportunity to play in it


----------



## Tongo (Apr 5, 2016)

JP58 said:



			For me definitely no, some of the reasons have already been mentioned on here re the way its run and its attitudes, but for me its because its played on the same parkland course with *tricked up greens*, dyed water, no rough and fairways that even Bubba Watson can't miss ! Its boring !

The reason the pros say they love it is because if anyone says anything close to being critical they run the risk of not being invited back, the "good ol boys" don't take kindly to complaints.
Its is the youngest of all the majors (1934) to me that is not a major that should be supported by the comment of its "history"
		
Click to expand...


Well the USGA have been known to trick up the odd green or two in their time.


----------



## Tongo (Apr 5, 2016)

JP58 said:



			For me definitely no, some of the reasons have already been mentioned on here re the way its run and its attitudes, but for me its because its played on the *same parkland course* with tricked up greens, dyed water, no rough and fairways that even Bubba Watson can't miss ! Its boring !

The reason the pros say they love it is because if anyone says anything close to being critical they run the risk of not being invited back, the "good ol boys" don't take kindly to complaints.
Its is the youngest of all the majors (1934) to me that is not a major that should be supported by the comment of its "history"
		
Click to expand...

The Dinah Shore, or ANA Inspiration as it is now, has been played on the same course since its inception whilst the Ladies PGA Championship has spent time at one course for extended periods so the Masters is not alone on that front.


----------



## TheDiablo (Apr 5, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			A balanced and reasonable argument. However it's one I disagree with. Some of the fairways aren't that wide, especially given the cambers and it rewards those who can get their approaches into the right place as opposed to just shoot for the pin you see on tour most weeks. I don't know many, including those who won't get an invite again, who have ever had too much to say negatively so I do think by and large most pros like the opportunity to play in it
		
Click to expand...

It's not balanced at all! That would be presenting both sides and then concluding. He stated his position at the outset, which he is entitled to, and then argued it one way and one way only. Which is fine. But it's not balanced!


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 5, 2016)

TheDiablo said:



			It's not balanced at all! That would be presenting both sides and then concluding. He stated his position at the outset, which he is entitled to, and then argued it one way and one way only. Which is fine. But it's not balanced!
		
Click to expand...

Whatever. Rationally put whichever way you cut it. He doesn't like it and explained why. More than we sometimes get!


----------



## JP58 (Apr 6, 2016)

Just a few thoughts re some of the responses to my post,

Yes the USGA have been known to "trick up" greens in the past, but imo not to the extent the Masters committee do, as they are the only real defence the course has, to my mind its not pro golf when a player can pitch in to a few feet and watch his ball disappear off the green !

I don't think any pro or come to that tv company wants to risk not getting invited back because of a critical comment, remember the "bikini waxed" comment from Gary McCord, the committee threatened to pull CBS's contract if he wasn't removed, contrast that with the pro's criticism of Carnoustie's rough in 1999, would they have said similar things about Augusta, I think not.

That's just one example of the "bubble" that the committee live in and unfortunately they are moving steadily away from the vision Bobby Jones's had for his course and have effectively created a "made for tv major", and yes I will still be watching it and hoping Peter Alliss doesn't give a damn and says what he thinks !


----------



## Smiffy (Apr 6, 2016)

Snelly said:



			As an aside, I disagree with all those who say the past champions should not be allowed to play. They are there because they earned their place.  End of story.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that past champions should not be allowed to play Snelly. I'm saying that there should be a cut off point. As I mentioned earlier, seeing old boys struggling to score two rounds in the 80's does not, for me, a "major" make.
Larry Mize, for instance...as nice as guy as he may be, he picked up a green jacket courtesy of a flukey chip nearly 30 years ago. In his last 15 Masters, he has failed to make the cut 12 times!!


----------



## Slab (Apr 6, 2016)

Smiffy said:



			I'm not saying that past champions should not be allowed to play Snelly. I'm saying that there should be a cut off point. As I mentioned earlier, seeing old boys struggling to score two rounds in the 80's does not, for me, a "major" make.
*Larry Mize, for instance...as nice as guy as he may be, he picked up a green jacket courtesy of a flukey chip nearly 30 years ago. In his last 15 Masters, he has failed to make the cut 12 times!*!
		
Click to expand...

Dagnamit, I think I got him in the office sweep!


----------



## user2010 (Apr 6, 2016)

...


----------



## Smiffy (Apr 6, 2016)

Slab said:



			Dagnamit, I think I got him in the office sweep!
		
Click to expand...

Well there's one 20p you won't be seeing again....


----------



## MashieNiblick (Apr 6, 2016)

Fun debate with some interesting thoughts.

I'm pretty much with MetalMickie that as long as the players consider it a Major (and in many cases it's the one they most want to win) then that's good enough for me. 

I think each Major _should _be different and have it's own character and quirks, whether that is only playing on links or having club pros or penal rough or playing the same course, having crazy greens and inviting past winners for life. Makes for some variety in what could otherwise be endless run of  72 hole 7,200 yard slog fests (I can't honestly tell the difference between a lot of regular Tour or  WCG events).

The invitation thing is a red herring in my view. Criteria to get an "invite" is not that different to exemptions at other Majors. OK so no separate dedicated qualifying process but players know what they need to do to get an invite, and they are all "earned" in some sense.

Field is smaller but that makes it more exclusive (arguably no bad thing for an elite event - it's called the "Masters" after all so I'd expect it to be more exclusive that something called an "Open"). Might also partly be that there's simply less daylight in early April in Georgia to get a big field round in time.

Whilst I agree TV coverage might be better that could never be a reason for it not to be classed as a Major. I'd love to see someone tell the guys in the locker room this week or at the Champions Dinner that it doesn't deserve to be a Major because some blokes on a golf forum can't watch every hole live on the Red Button! 

As for history, well it might be the youngest Major but it it's still over 80 years old, was the brainchild of one of the greatest players in the history of the game, and has been coveted, revered and won, by just about all the greats since then.


----------



## Tongo (Apr 6, 2016)

Snooker's Masters is invite only, non-ranking and a limited field but it is still viewed as one of the most prestigious tournaments in the calendar and part of the triple crown occasionally referred to.


----------



## Smiffy (Apr 6, 2016)

Tongo said:



			Snooker's Masters is invite only, non-ranking and a limited field but it is still viewed as one of the most prestigious tournaments in the calendar and part of the triple crown occasionally referred to.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's not a sport is it...


----------



## palindromicbob (Apr 6, 2016)

Sat here watching the Par 3. Player just got a hole in one and my excitement for a weekend of great golf is building to palpable levels.   

Yup.  Definitely worthy of a major to me.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 6, 2016)

palindromicbob said:



			Sat here watching the Par 3. Player just got a hole in one and my excitement for a weekend of great golf is building to palpable levels.   

Yup.  Definitely worthy of a major to me.
		
Click to expand...

Where as I have turned it off and watching a film - it started to bore me tbh. The only thing that made it enjoyable was Butch who is clearly on form this year - some quality quotes from him


----------



## TheDiablo (Apr 6, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Where as I have turned it off and watching a film - it started to bore me tbh. The only thing that made it enjoyable was Butch who is clearly on form this year - some quality quotes from him
		
Click to expand...

Can't be a very good film if you're on here &#128540;


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 6, 2016)

TheDiablo said:



			Can't be a very good film if you're on here &#128540;
		
Click to expand...

:rofl: To be honest the par three isn't suppose to be serious and really can't see how it's boring. Good to see everyone having some fun.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Apr 6, 2016)

TheDiablo said:



			Can't be a very good film if you're on here &#128540;
		
Click to expand...

You're not wrong


----------



## jp5 (Apr 6, 2016)

Best tournament golf has got going for it.

The history, the course, the worldwide viewing audience.

Just seen one of the great players of the game at the age of 80 do something most of us only dream of!

Rightfully deserving of its major status IMO.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Apr 7, 2016)

jp5 said:



			Best tournament golf has got going for it.

The history, the course, the worldwide viewing audience.

Just seen one of the great players of the game at the age of 80 do something most of us only dream of!

Rightfully deserving of its major status IMO.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty accurate summary sir


----------

