The Masters - A Major - Why?

[Tiger]

Don't know the figures but, for me, that's not the point. Someone ranked 51 in the world has more chance of winning than Ben Crenshaw nowadays.

The whole nature of it being an "invitational" detracts from it. They always invite guys from Asia who don't qualify by any other means and they only do that to market it to that audience.

But I love the relaxed nature of it and the tradition. I'd rather have the Par 3 contest with the friends and family as caddies, the opening drive with Niklaus, Palmer and Player giving it a tonk and having Couples, Langer and Cabrera giving the young'uns a run for their money than watch Russell Henley, John Senden and Marcel Siem struggle at Augusta. But it all comes down to personal preference and I reckon on the recent poll you probably preferred The Open, whilst I preferred the Masters.

That said the committee made a complete hash of managing this year's event

 

[FairwayDodger]

But I love the relaxed nature of it and the tradition. I'd rather have the Par 3 contest with the friends and family as caddies, the opening drive with Niklaus, Palmer and Player giving it a tonk and having Couples, Langer and Cabrera giving the young'uns a run for their money than watch Russell Henley, John Senden and Marcel Siem struggle at Augusta. But it all comes down to personal preference and I reckon on the recent poll you probably preferred The Open, whilst I preferred the Masters.

That said the committee made a complete hash of managing this year's event

And yet for every langer (this year) or Cabrera there's a Crenshaw or stadler. I mean, am I right in saying that even old Arnie could tee it up on day 1 should he so desire? I really enjoy the masters, btw, and seeing these old guys but it's a sideshow. Since the question was asked, my opinion is no it probably shouldn't be a major any more but that wouldn't stop me staying up to watch it....

For me, the final straw was bending the rules to keep tiger in. I don't imagine for a minute that would have happened at the open and it really cheapened the event.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

The players themselves love the Masters, they love the fact it's always played on the same course and the love the course itself - it will always be a major for that reason alone.

But the players don't see or care that the TV coverage is restricted, they don't care that they operate within their own little closed shop and they don't care that it is a restricted field, just as long as they themselves are there

 

[Crazyface]

Don't care, it's not under my control or influence. Smashing TV tho'. Lovely course. The difficulty in getting a ticket to watch, let alone play, just adds to the mystique of the place.

PS I few posts on here refer to how bad the committee have been this year. What did they do wrong?

 

[Imurg]

Imurg raised this on a previous thread and I asked in reply how many Majors in the past ten years have been won by someone outside the World Top 50. He didn't know but I think that's the crux of it for me. If you can say 10/15% then I think it's a valid criticism if not then I don't see how the argument stacks up...

I hear what you're saying but if you take it to the extremes - if the last 10-20 Majors have been won by players in the Top 50, why have anyone other than the Top 50 taking part, or the Top 30 or.....in any Major

It's an Invitational event - you have to be invited to take part. Just being in the Top 50 is no guarantee. If Luke, for example, decided he doesn't like Billy Payne's idea of a Tournament and criticises the Course, Members and Paynes himself to the point of questioning his Parentage - He will not get an invite whetther he's No.1 or No.50 - Payne will not sign the letter. Not saying this would happen but it could.
Marcel Siem won a Tournament before the Masters as did Martin Laird - Laird got the invite, Siem didn't and neither made the Top 50.
The seriously reduced field is another reason. 93 players took part this year. At least a dozen of those had No chance of winning. The likes of Woosie, Mize, Crenshaw and to an extent Ollie, Langer, Lyle and the Amateurs - and I know Langer did ok and Lyle made the cut but they were never going to be in the mix come Sunday afternoon.
That leaves a field of less than 80 - for, as some are saying here, the Top event of the year.....
It comes back to the first point - why bother with everyone else, make it Top 50 only and be done with it.

It's a great event, a great spectacle and a great herald for the New Season but it's not a Major in my eyes.

 

[Tiger]

And yet for every langer (this year) or Cabrera there's a Crenshaw or stadler. I mean, am I right in saying that even old Arnie could tee it up on day 1 should he so desire? I really enjoy the masters, btw, and seeing these old guys but it's a sideshow. Since the question was asked, my opinion is no it probably shouldn't be a major any more but that wouldn't stop me staying up to watch it....

For me, the final straw was bending the rules to keep tiger in. I don't imagine for a minute that would have happened at the open and it really cheapened the event.

Agree the older players is a sideshow but it's a more entertaining side show than watching the lower ranked players from the world rankings. Watching Langer birdie the first three holes to get into contention was brilliant and doubt it would have had the same romance if it had been John Senden. 100% agree that the Woods debacle wouldn't have happened anywhere else and it massively took the gloss of for me.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

And yet for every langer (this year) or Cabrera there's a Crenshaw or stadler. I mean, am I right in saying that even old Arnie could tee it up on day 1 should he so desire? I really enjoy the masters, btw, and seeing these old guys but it's a sideshow. Since the question was asked, my opinion is no it probably shouldn't be a major any more but that wouldn't stop me staying up to watch it....

For me, the final straw was bending the rules to keep tiger in. I don't imagine for a minute that would have happened at the open and it really cheapened the event.

The automatic invite should stop for past champions when you get to the seniors tour and you should then have to qualify again by either being at the top of the seniors rankings or prove you can compete on the regular tour by playing a couple of events and making the cut. I think I made this point last year about a couple of the players who clearly couldn't compete yet they were playing and Els wasn't.

Take Ben Crenshaw this year for example, 4 champions tour events, best score +9. Definate reason for a Masters invite

 

[Tiger]

The automatic invite should stop for past champions when you get to the seniors tour and you should then have to qualify again by either being at the top of the seniors rankings or prove you can compete on the regular tour by playing a couple of events and making the cut. I think I made this point last year about a couple of the players who clearly couldn't compete yet they were playing and Els wasn't.

Take Ben Crenshaw this year for example, 4 champions tour events, best score +9. Definate reason for a Masters invite

Yeah because Keegan Bradley many people's tip to win The Masters put in a stellar performance didn't he!

 

[BTatHome]

W

Marcel Siem won a Tournament before the Masters as did Martin Laird - Laird got the invite, Siem didn't and neither made the Top 50.

thats comparing apples and oranges. The Masters has multiple ways to qualify for an invite, the Top 50 and PGA tour event winners are just two of them. Laird got in because he won a pga tour event, Siem won in Europe so that makes no difference, he had a chance thru the top 50 but it wasn't to be .... he even got an invite to the final event on the pga in an attempt to win but didn't (because Laird won it).

.... Lets be honest all tournaments have qualifying criteria, and most employ some invites too, so the masters is not really that different (can't remember many people qualifying for the masters but NOT getting an invite, so is that part really an issue?)

 

[Neddy]

Like so many things in golf.....it's a major just because that's all anyoone who is alive can remember it being.

It's not my favourite event. For all it's mystique and the obvious beauty of the golf course. Lots of it is all that is still wrong with the game in some quarters. Exclusivity, pretentiousness and pointless traditions that remain way past their time.

 

[MashieNiblick]

This comes up periodically and the thing that never really gets discussed in relation to whether a particular tournament should or shouldn't be a Major or whether there should be a 5th one, is how those who propose a change think it would happen.

The story of Arnie and Bob Drum shows that in fact there isn't any process as such and certainly no authority that awards or can remove a tournament's status as a Major (even the GM forum ).

The Majors are The Majors simply because the majority of the golfing community, players, fans and media, considers them to be so and have done for decades. Of course it's now self fulfilling to a degree because those tournaments attract the best fields and the most coverage, and have history on their side.

Hence talk of adding another Major or removing Major status etc always makes me wonder how exactly would it be done? All the Tours, National Professional and Amateur Governing Bodies, Golf Writers' Associations, etc. around the world all sitting around a table to declare that the Somewhere-or-Other Classic is now "A Major" and the Masters isn't. Hmmmm...let me think about that.

As for past Champions competing, aren't all past Open Champions exempt until the age of 60?

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Yeah because Keegan Bradley many people's tip to win The Masters put in a stellar performance didn't he!

The players aren't always going to play well but that isn't the point. Ben Crenshaw was never going to compete and no-one was surprised he was down the bottom. Bradley on the other hand was a surprise and had a bad week, but he still had more chance than Crenshaw.

 

[mikee247]

I don't have a problem with it being a major but after having watched it for 15yrs or so it was only the past couple of days that it dawned on me what a PUTTING FARCE it really is. Most of the greens would suit a 'crazy golf' kind of course. It's really a case of who can hole the most 'Mickey Mouse Putts' in 4 days that wins.

If they took 25% (or more) of the slopes out of the course I reckon the play would be far more exciting. I started finding all those missed putts rather tedious in the end.

I completely agree with this the putting is becoming rather dull. It is a bit of lottery at times but then they get away with it at Augusta with the lunacy of the slopes and fast greens but when the greens became almost unplayable at the US Open one year when Goosen won it it was seriously frowned upone. I cant ever see that happening here but why is it accepted?

I love the Masters but only because it make great TV and the money spent on it makes it so. The fact that the course is near enough impossible for us average Joes to play is my biggest issue. Such a pompous set up with a high level of snobbery and a "them and us" attitude involved with Augusta. Any other course in the world can played relatively easily which hosts majors and some are
even better! Ive heard Augusta is pretty average on a normal non event week. Golf must be available to more people and Augusta doesn't do its bit in my opinion.

 

[Tiger]

The players aren't always going to play well but that isn't the point. Ben Crenshaw was never going to compete and no-one was surprised he was down the bottom. Bradley on the other hand was a surprise and had a bad week, but he still had more chance than Crenshaw.

Mike I hoped you noted the wink smiley

On a serious note, no he wouldn't contend but then again I wonder if playing in his company helped young Guan... I'm not actually in favour of losing any of the Majors or adding a new one. However, if the USPGA tour expanded its horizons outside of the States and had a little rebrand that would open the door for the USPGA to be staged outside of the US maybe once every three/four years in South Africa or Australasia. That would be good but as the European Tour got their first I can't see it happening any time soon...

 

[Imurg]

I heard someone say over the weekend that if the Augusta Greens were designed today people would just laugh at them.
I lost count of the number of good shots that virtually stopped 6 feet away from the flag but then rolled another 40 away down a slope that a LandRover would struggle to get up.....

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It's funny that you replace a major that changes courses with a competition that remains at the same course every year.

If you ask the players which major they want to win the most then it's normally the masters followed by the open when it's at St Andrews. It is a major because of where it's played.

You wouldn't move Wimbledon as it's the venue that is the draw for the pros and the crowds. It's the history, the mystique of the competition that makes it what it is and so highly prized by tennis players.

F1 drivers want to win at Silverstone not because it's the British grand Prix but because it's Silverstone. The same with Spa.

It's not just the title, it's the fact it is Augusta and it is The Masters. Yes the committee has it's own way of doing things but that is what makes it so special.
Personally I think they didn't quiet get it right this year. Yes it was a spectacular finish but it came too late. There wasn't the build up to that grand finale that they have managed to have in previous years, there were no big movers on the back 9 and a lot of that was down to the weather.

Would I move the masters or have another competition take it's place?

No, not a chance!

Only 51 weeks to go till the next one.

Our friend is not suggesting the Masters should be changed in any way at all. It would still be the Augusta Masters. It would still be on TV. It just wouldn't be able to call itself one of the Majors and be part of the group of wins that make up a grand slam.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I think I agree. Too many good players not invited while spaces taken up by former champions treating it like a monthly medal (not all obviously but they need to know when to stop), the ridiculous greens and, now, playing fast and loose with the rules. A great tournament in many ways but too insular to be a modern major.

Yes - it is possible to see another point of view when you think about it in the context of the majors. It is what it is. Despite it's flaws (you've mentioned a couple here) it is enjoyable. It does however, it seems to me, deem itself rather untouchable, special and better than anyone else as it 'owns' a major. Should any club 'own' a major?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The masters has the weakest field, is played in Disneyland, and is an invitational run by old duffers.

If it was not a major, the players would still play because of the history, mystique, etc. it would still be on telly. It would still be beautiful to watch the manicured terrain, and it would still herald the start of the season.

It just shouldn't be a major.

Quite - so despite maybe (as foxholer suggests) having been clonked over the head a few times when I was practicing my bunker play (I did feel rather discombobulated I have to admit) maybe the thought isn't total madness.

 

[shivas irons]

I think if you question weither The Masters should or should not be a major you don't know the history of the sport and what huge reverence The Masters is when it comes to the world of golf.I suggest you need a golfing history lesson and as for the greens well ths is what makes Augusta so different and special.

 

[Val]

Great Tournament and one that always draws people to watch and creates amazing excitment but for me unless it becomes more of an open with a qualifying criteria rather than an invitational it shouldnt really be a major.

People talk about the R&A being steeped and tradition and unwilling to change, I reckon Augusta National take it to a new level.