Masters 2019

[Dan2501]

How many “qualifying events” do they host around the globe to allow others to gained entry into the Major , plus winners of certain tournaments around the world

156 play in the Open , 156 play in the US Open , 156 in the US PGA

Why should the Master be first of all restricted by invite !! And secondly to half the amount of the other three majors

Over the years some quality players have missed out whilst some guy who won it 40 years ago struggles to break 90 can still play and it’s all just US based events that allow entry - where are the guys that win on the ET or on the Sunshine Tour ?

The entry and the way they allow people to play in their Comp is outdated and imo needs to change until then imo it’s a glorified invitational as others have said

The same 40 year olds who are no longer good enough to play on the Tour still play in The Open every year if they're a past champion. It doesn't bother me that The Masters is slightly more exclusive, if anything it makes it more special. Sure there are some older guys that probably shouldn't be playing, but we have that at every major, that doesn't take away from the field strength. All of the best players in the world make it to The Masters - 56 fewer play than play at the other Majors, but is that really a big issue? Who is missing out that should be there? It's not like politics of the invitational are getting in the way of the best players in the world competing for one of the 4 Majors - all the top players are there. Total non-issue for me.

 

[Imurg]

Right - so it's an invitational I get that, but who's really missing out that would be of value to the field? To qualify you need to fulfil one of the following criteria:



The Masters committee then invite a series of International players that fall outside of this criteria. If you don't make it through one of those routes - you're not a huge loss to a Major championship for me. Am I missing something? Who's missing out that should be there?

Not disagreeing with you but, by that logic, why do the other majors have a full field of 150+..?

 

[Parsaregood]

Yep really don't rate the course, doesn't matter who the designer is. Doesn't matter how pretty the flora and fauna are for me it's not a good course.

There are a couple of holes where they've made it picturesque more through the addition of the flowers etc than the actual layout. If you can hit it long and putt well that's pretty much all you need, it requires less stragtey than all other major courses and is pretty much wide open in the most part.

I know people that have been to watch the event and said themselves without the crowds and grandstands it's pretty much a wide open field.

We're all different and that's what makes discussion here worth it. I will tune in and I will enjoy watching the drama unfold.

If it requires so little strategy why has there been so few first time winners, have you ever seen the course in person ? You only have to listen to lots of the vets to know that it's a course you could play 1000 times and still learn things about it. Best event outside the open for me, everything about it gets me excited for the new season ahead

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The same 40 year olds who are no longer good enough to play on the Tour still play in The Open every year if they're a past champion. It doesn't bother me that The Masters is slightly more exclusive, if anything it makes it more special. Sure there are some older guys that probably shouldn't be playing, but we have that at every major, that doesn't take away from the field strength. All of the best players in the world make it to The Masters - 56 fewer play than play at the other Majors, but is that really a big issue? Who is missing out that should be there? It's not like politics of the invitational are getting in the way of the best players in the world competing for one of the 4 Majors - all the top players are there. Total non-issue for me.

You have missed the point

Everything in regards the Masters is weighted towards the US Based players - Soneone for example wins on the ET but doesn’t get entry , someone wins on the PGA tour and they get entry - why when it’s a Major which should be open to all ? If a player isn’t a member of the PGA tour then they are extremely disadvantaged because of the way the World ranking points system works.

And once a player who has won reaches the age of 60 then they no longer are eligible

One of the biggest image issues golf has is snobbery and exclusivity issues - The Masters is full of it.

For me it should have the same criteria as all the majors - Open it up to more players on other tours and not just the PGA tour - or make it a PGA tour event and get a major somewhere else.

 

[TheDiablo]

If you can hit it long and putt well that's pretty much all you need, it requires less stragtey than all other majors.

That comment alone shows a complete misunderstanding of the course. It's a second shot course, about position off the tee and great ball striking in the approach. That's what wins around there, nothing to do with length and not as much to do with putting as the media would have you think.

 

[Parsaregood]

You have missed the point

Everything in regards the Masters is weighted towards the US Based players - Soneone for example wins on the ET but doesn’t get entry , someone wins on the PGA tour and they get entry - why when it’s a Major which should be open to all ? If a player isn’t a member of the PGA tour then they are extremely disadvantaged because of the way the World ranking points system works.

And once a player who has won reaches the age of 60 then they no longer are eligible

One of the biggest image issues golf has is snobbery and exclusivity issues - The Masters is full of it.

For me it should have the same criteria as all the majors - Open it up to more players on other tours and not just the PGA tour - or make it a PGA tour event and get a major somewhere else.

It's open to players on all tours plus is very supportive of amateur golfers. The field is capped at a number for a reason, so is every WGC event. Who cares, the best players and the best amateurs will always be providing exciting golf

 

[Parsaregood]

That comment alone shows a complete misunderstanding of the course. It's a second shot course, about position off the tee and great ball striking in the approach. That's what wins around there, nothing to do with length and not as much to do with putting as the media would have you think.

He obviously doesn't know that zach Johnson has won the even fairly recently

 

[Wolf]

That comment alone shows a complete misunderstanding of the course. It's a second shot course, about position off the tee and great ball striking in the approach. That's what wins around there, nothing to do with length and not as much to do with putting as the media would have you think.

I disagree with you and that's based on my own opinion of years watching it m, but God forbid I disagree with anyone about the Masters..

He obviously doesn't know that zach Johnson has won the even fairly recently

I also do know Zach won and I wouldn't say 12 years ago was fairly recent but as per my point above, God forbid disagreeing about this hallowed major.

As I've said though I'll watch it and no doubt continue like LP to be the villain of this thread because I don't think it's the best major.

 

[Dan2501]

Not disagreeing with you but, by that logic, why do the other majors have a full field of 150+..?

Because two of them are "Opens" so there's open qualifying for any Joe Schmo that wants to qualify, doesn't guarantee the strength of field as anyone could turn up and have a good few rounds in Qualifying and make it through, are they strengthening the field though? Same with Final Qualifying where the pros who haven't qualified by the other means get a go - are they adding to the strength of the field because they had a good 36 holes? And then the PGA allows a few PGA Coaches to qualify and play - are they strengthening the field? More numbers doesn't necessarily mean stronger field. Don't get me wrong- I love that anyone can enter and possibly win The Open, but that doesn't make it a better or stronger tournament than The Masters.

You have missed the point

Everything in regards the Masters is weighted towards the US Based players - Soneone for example wins on the ET but doesn’t get entry , someone wins on the PGA tour and they get entry - why when it’s a Major which should be open to all ? If a player isn’t a member of the PGA tour then they are extremely disadvantaged because of the way the World ranking points system works.

And once a player who has won reaches the age of 60 then they no longer are eligible

One of the biggest image issues golf has is snobbery and exclusivity issues - The Masters is full of it.

For me it should have the same criteria as all the majors - Open it up to more players on other tours and not just the PGA tour - or make it a PGA tour event and get a major somewhere else.

2 of the 4 Majors aren't open to everyone, so I'm struggling to see your point. Also, there are actually arguments to say the WR system is favoured towards the ET.

 

[Parsaregood]

I disagree with you and that's based on my own opinion of years watching it m, but God forbid I disagree with anyone about the Masters..



I also do know Zach won and I wouldn't say 12 years ago was fairly recent but as per my point above, God forbid disagreeing about this hallowed major.

As I've said though I'll watch it and no doubt continue like LP to be the villain of this thread because I don't think it's the best major.

Fred couples was leading it with a bad back at 50, Danny Willett won it and isn't particularly long. Many others too, the course isn't a course which only suits long hitters, it's a course that suits the person that knows where you can miss it, what angles to come into what pins, it test your chipping and pitching to the extreme

 

[Slime]

How many “qualifying events” do they host around the globe to allow others to gained entry into the Major , plus winners of certain tournaments around the world

156 play in the Open , 156 play in the US Open , 156 in the US PGA

Why should the Master be first of all restricted by invite !! And secondly to half the amount of the other three majors

Over the years some quality players have missed out whilst some guy who won it 40 years ago struggles to break 90 can still play and it’s all just US based events that allow entry - where are the guys that win on the ET or on the Sunshine Tour ?

The entry and the way they allow people to play in their Comp is outdated and imo needs to change until then imo it’s a glorified invitational as others have said

It's all part of the charm and the tradition.
It's part of what makes it so wonderfully unique.
Oh, and viewing is not compulsory.

 

[Wolf]

Fred couples was leading it with a bad back at 50, Danny Willett won it and isn't particularly long. Many others too, the course isn't a course which only suits long hitters, it's a course that suits the person that knows where you can miss it, what angles to come into what pins, it test your chipping and pitching to the extreme

Doesn't change my opinion about the event not being the best major

 

[MendieGK]

I disagree with you and that's based on my own opinion of years watching it m, but God forbid I disagree with anyone about the Masters..



I also do know Zach won and I wouldn't say 12 years ago was fairly recent but as per my point above, God forbid disagreeing about this hallowed major.

As I've said though I'll watch it and no doubt continue like LP to be the villain of this thread because I don't think it's the best major.

For the record I’ve no issue with it not being your fav major but to say it’s not a great course is ludicrous.

Statistically pros make more 6ft putts at Augusta than anywhere on the PGA tour.

 

[Wolf]

For the record I’ve no issue with it not being your fav major but to say it’s not a great course is ludicrous.

Statistically pros make more 6ft putts at Augusta than anywhere on the PGA tour.

In your opinion. Mines different and like you said we're all entitled to them.

 

[Parsaregood]

For all those complaining its exclusive and all the rest of it, are any of you watching the drive chip and putt ? I haven't seen any other major getting as involved with kids from all over the place, great to watch

 

[TheDiablo]

I disagree with you and that's based on my own opinion of years watching it m, but God forbid I disagree with anyone about the Masters..



I also do know Zach won and I wouldn't say 12 years ago was fairly recent but as per my point above, God forbid disagreeing about this hallowed major.

As I've said though I'll watch it and no doubt continue like LP to be the villain of this thread because I don't think it's the best major.

It's fine, but your opinions are based on anecdotal crap, rather than what actually happens.

You can have an opinion on the course, on the validity as a major etc. That's fine. Wrong, but fine. But you cant have a an opinion that goes against actual facts. And I called you out on a comment about the course which is factually wrong.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It's all part of the charm and the tradition.
It's part of what makes it so wonderfully unique.
Oh, and viewing is not compulsory.

What does viewing have to do with discussions about the qualifying criteria ? Or is that just the generic answer ?

All major sport events are about getting as many to play as possible - all the tennis slams are open to many , football tournaments etc getting bigger to try and get smaller nations in - trying to make all sports as inclusive as possible.

Three of the majors are - then there is the Masters which for me is the runt of the litter. The course itself is a test , immaculately presented , not my favourite type of course but you can see the appeal of it , it’s always a test of golf and requires excellent shot control but it’s ruined by the event being tightly controlled by the “committee” who make their own rules outside of the sporting bodies and we have seen how that works , the restriction of the telly pictures , why is the live coverage restricted so much ! It all just smells of the posh snobbish exclusive men’s club that gives golf a bad name. I for one hope it changes

 

[Jacko_G]

Woodland 80/1 £5 e/w
Schauffele 40/1 £5
Stenson 60/1 £5

Gives an added interest.

 

[Parsaregood]

What does viewing have to do with discussions about the qualifying criteria ? Or is that just the generic answer ?

All major sport events are about getting as many to play as possible - all the tennis slams are open to many , football tournaments etc getting bigger to try and get smaller nations in - trying to make all sports as inclusive as possible.

Three of the majors are - then there is the Masters which for me is the runt of the litter. The course itself is a test , immaculately presented , not my favourite type of course but you can see the appeal of it , it’s always a test of golf and requires excellent shot control but it’s ruined by the event being tightly controlled by the “committee” who make their own rules outside of the sporting bodies and we have seen how that works , the restriction of the telly pictures , why is the live coverage restricted so much ! It all just smells of the posh snobbish exclusive men’s club that gives golf a bad name. I for one hope it changes

I think when people see the masters on TV they are naturally drawn to it, it is striking. Nick Faldo was just on TV saying the masters was the reason he started playing golf. You have s chip on your shoulder

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I think when people see the masters on TV they are naturally drawn to it, it is striking. Nick Faldo was just on TV saying the masters was the reason he started playing golf. You have s chip on your shoulder

No i just have a different opinion to yourself -not sure how that means I have a “chip on my shoulder” - so let’s just keep it civil as it’s been a decent respectful discussion so far