Masters / Major exemptions.

[beau d.]

I always find the new edition of GM provokes a great item for debate. Up to yet this month I found Bill Elliott's article on John Daly very interesting and eye opening. It can be expanded to something which myself and playing partners were chatting about the other day, that is the Masters, indeed all the major player exemptions
Thankfully in my opinion not all the exempt players took up the option to play, at this years Masters

Masters Champions not playing: Tommy Aaron, Jack Burke Jr., Billy Casper, Charles Coody, Nick Faldo, Raymond Floyd, Doug Ford, Bob Goalby, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Tiger Woods (withdrew due to injury), Fuzzy Zoeller.

which I feel is all credit to them, but without naming names there were some in the field, whom by their own admission had absolutely no chance of winning. Now Bill's article for me sheds a different light on the subject, as my opinion is that any major should be a field of say 100 and that would be, for simplification the top order of merit 100 golfers. But like Bill says the sponsors still love the likes of JD rocking up at their tournament no matter how he plays. I feel myself this is only serving to prevent a young or even any talent the opportunity to play and possibly win the event.
I suppose when sponsors are stumping up the cash, they should be allowed a small influence on that playing field, but when it comes to the majors, it's not really the sponsors who are dictating policy, it's the golf authorities (I think) so financing doesn't play as big a part as it does at other events.
Golf as far as I can think is the only sport which supports this tradition, as let's say for example you don't see Nigel Mansell donning his helmet at the British Grand Prix, neither John McEnroe with his racket at Wimbledon. Don't get me wrong I feel it's brilliant to have the likes of Jack and Arnie turning up, playing in the Par 3 contest etc, but for me there should be no life long, even 5 year exemptions to any major, qualification should solely be generated by current ability. I do understand it will throw up the odd anomaly i.e Freddies constant creditable performances at Augusta, Tom Watson coming within a whisker in 2009 at the open etc but does the current policy warrant exemptions based on such a small minority?

 

[davidy233]

I can see where you are coming from but…

Bernhard Langer finished joint eighth in the Masters at 56, and Couples in the top twenty so some of them can still compete - there's an interesting article on an American golf magazine website today making the case for an over 50 winning the Masters.

Tom Watson's run at the 2009 open is the best televised fun to watch golf I've ever seen outside the Ryder Cup - I was glued to the screen.

Your argument could also be used to disallow the amateur champions getting into the majors - few ever compete but you get the odd one who stars (Justin Rose)

 

[beau d.]

I can see where you are coming from but…

Bernhard Langer finished joint eighth in the Masters at 56, and Couples in the top twenty so some of them can still compete - there's an interesting article on an American golf magazine website today making the case for an over 50 winning the Masters.

Tom Watson's run at the 2009 open is the best televised fun to watch golf I've ever seen outside the Ryder Cup - I was glued to the screen.

Your argument could also be used to disallow the amateur champions getting into the majors - few ever compete but you get the odd one who stars (Justin Rose)

It's a difficult subject really, balancing tradition with potential winners and you make an excellent point re. amateurs which I had not considered. But on the other hand we have had Major championship winners (without doing the research) which if all exempt players had took the option to play would not have been in the field.

 

[RichardSanderson]

The traditions in golf is what attract many people to the game. It would be a shame to change that. The Masters is as the name suggests, for the masters of the game - past and present. Limiting that to 5 years defeats the object of the tournament all together in my opinion.

The players themselves should continue to decide when they step down, I'd presume most will stop playing it when they feel they can't make it round without embarrassing themselves. As we all know the game of golf is a fickle beast - the best of players can fail at the peak of their careers and vice-versa.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

As I see it, they've earned the right to keep coming back if they want too.
Mize, Lyle, Singh, Olazabal, Langer, Couples all made the cut from amongst the older end of past champions returning.
Many younger, better players failed to make the cut, so perhaps they should look more carefully at how some of them got in?

 

[MashieNiblick]

Good thread.

In my view it's a classic heart versus head conundrum. I love seeing the older players competing, Like Watson, Norman, Couples etc and it is one of the honours that goes with being past a past Champion and one of the things that does set golf apart from other sports like tennis etc. However it is true that it reduces opportunities for others who might take it to make their break through.

Competing though is they key. If they are competitive they should be allowed to play, but how can that be judged? Maybe some additional criteria for over 50's like must have made the cut in the event within the past 5 years. However that would stop the old favourites coming back to say goodbyes like Arnie at the US Open a few years back when he cried at the press conference - surely one of the most touching moments in golf. I think a few special invites should always be available for those magical moments.

The Seniors/Champions tours and the Senior Open do give us the chance to see the great (and not so great) players of past still competing.

No right answer but interested in others' views.

 

[brendy]

The Masters is a great example of showcasing the current cream of the crop along with some of the heroes of the game.
Golf is the same as any other sport/vocation in that the younger kids still need to serve some time getting their bearings so have no god given right to play in the top rung unless they have proven themselves in a short space of time to be special.

 

[Imurg]

It's always been my view that you should have to qualify for a Major Championship, not be invited as you are at The Masters.
Qualification can be by finishing high enough the previous year, having won the event within a certain period ( 5 years seems sufficient), World Ranking position and qualifying though certain events like Final/Local qualifying or qualifying competitions around the world.
As for the Old Boys playing - well, if they qualify as above then all well and good, if not - sorry, try again next year.
Enough previous winners don't play because they know they can't win. Faldo is a perfect example. OK he has his TV commitments but if he thought he could compete does anyone honestly think he wouldn't tee it up?

 

[Alex1975]

I do understand it will throw up the odd anomaly i.e Freddies constant creditable performances at Augusta, Tom Watson coming within a whisker in 2009 at the open etc but does the current policy warrant exemptions based on such a small minority?

This is enough for me to make it fun and worth while.

 

[Slab]

I've had this argument with myself before, should winning 10, 20+ years ago take a spot away from the next soul in the world rankings?

What it boils down to is there's no good consistent way to tell a champion that he's lost it and the replacement newbie probably has as much chance of winning as a 'Couples/Lyle' does anyway so isn't really adding anything to the event

So in the end the newbie has his career in front of him and plenty chances to get to play a major why not let the old guard fade until they decide themselves that its more lucrative to commentate than play

 

[DannyOT]

I agree that there is no sure fire way of knowing which past champion will remain competitive and who will simply be there on past merit.

I think the masters has it pretty spot on. Top 50 in the world is enough to create an elite field and I would argue that those outside the too 50 have just as little chance of doing well as those winners from decades ago. I personally would much rather see a past champ in the running for a major such as Fred couples than someone relatively unknown or with less winning experience.

 

[jimbob.someroo]

I love seeing some of the old boys up there competing. Any sport is much more interesting with characters and names that you know. I'd wager a large part of the viewing audience (remember, we're in the minority in being keener than most) would rather watch someone like Tom Watson / Fred Couples / Olazabal up there on the leaderboard than some of the new talents like Henley / Spieth / Reed.

When I become Chairman of Augusta, I'd keep the entry for life rule, but with a stipulation that you still had to be in the top 500 in the world. That way you get those that are still active and playing regularly but who may be slightly past their best-by date ...

 

[HawkeyeMS]

I seem to remember starting a similar thread on this exact topic last year. In my view, the older guys who are exempt should still have a further qualification criteria, something like having played a certain number of regular or champions tour events the previous year. A lot of these guys have basically retired from golf yet still rock up at Augusta which doesn't seem right.