Should the Masters be a Major

[Smiffy]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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???

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Fixed that for you👍😚

 

[freddielong]

Fixed that for you👍😚

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]

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???

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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]

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]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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

The qualifying criteria should be the same for all four

 

[HomerJSimpson]

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.

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]

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

The qualifying criteria should be the same for all four

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]

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

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