Should the Masters be a Major

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date

Should the Masters be a Major

  • Total voters
    146
D

Deleted member 15344

Guest
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
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).
 
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!👍
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
The difficulties in arranging golf holidays for groups. Spain or Portugal or somewhere else. Everyone has different opinions on the golf courses...
2 3
Replies
40
Views
7K
gopher99
G
T
Deep in the stat cave
Replies
3
Views
2K
HomerJSimpson
HomerJSimpson
D
  • Poll Poll
10. Should the Masters be a major?
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Ethan
Ethan
rystaman
Time for a new coach?
2 3
Replies
58
Views
8K
Deleted member 21784
D
MarkT
Will Tiger play in the 2022 Masters?
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
18K
Tashyboy
Tashyboy
Top