Two players born 100 years apart

[PhilTheFragger]

Yes, 2 actually ?

Basically, in 22 years time, if a then 18 year old plays, Tiger will be 66.... I think I knew what I meant ?

Oh god you mean there were 2 and I only picked up on 1.

Foxy will be furious ???

 

[Grant85]

Edited to add that this isn't looking a spanning a 5 decade career but the original 100 stat.

Presumably because they stopped encouraging past champions who were no longer competitive to play the Masters at the start of the century. If you look at 2002 Masters, Doug Ford played born in 1922 as well as Sergio so if Sergio plays when he's 60 as a past champion (2040), then an 18 year old born in 2022 would take him to 100 years difference. Whether he makes the cut is a different matter but i could see him still playing if they go across to the champions tour.

I think that's the last generation who will have a chance on this unless the 14yr old amateur plays into his 60s and has success at the Masters.

My guess is that we'll see a few more past champions get a tap on the shoulder as time goes on. Unless you are playing regular competition golf then you shouldn't be playing in a major championship, imo. And even then, these guys can just about make the cut with their A game.

Woosnam and Cabrerra absent this year. Faldo, it seemed, wasn't bothered about playing much when he wasn't competitive. O'Meara not played for a few years either. Tom Watson did v well into his 60s, but knew when it was time to call it quits.

Appreciate there's a certain amount of charm seeing these old guys tee it up, and most are capable of putting a decent 9 or 18 holes together, but in effect they are just artificially boosting the number of 'competitive' players who make the cut.

Would prefer to see the Masters a bit stricter on past champions and have a set field at 99, with players being added via world ranking to ensure 99 players.
Even just setting the field at 99 and filling it on world rankings would have a similar effect as some of the old boys wouldn't play if they were taking a spot away from a top ranked pro.

Perhaps remove the tap on the shoulder and say you have to make 3 cuts on the main tours or be a certain ranking on the Champions Tour.

 

[Imurg]

You saved me from being "Twaddled"...

Phew... ? Thanks ?

That sounds so much worse than it actually is..

 

[Deleted member 18588]

My guess is that we'll see a few more past champions get a tap on the shoulder as time goes on. Unless you are playing regular competition golf then you shouldn't be playing in a major championship, imo. And even then, these guys can just about make the cut with their A game.

Woosnam and Cabrerra absent this year. Faldo, it seemed, wasn't bothered about playing much when he wasn't competitive. O'Meara not played for a few years either. Tom Watson did v well into his 60s, but knew when it was time to call it quits.

Appreciate there's a certain amount of charm seeing these old guys tee it up, and most are capable of putting a decent 9 or 18 holes together, but in effect they are just artificially boosting the number of 'competitive' players who make the cut.

Would prefer to see the Masters a bit stricter on past champions and have a set field at 99, with players being added via world ranking to ensure 99 players.
Even just setting the field at 99 and filling it on world rankings would have a similar effect as some of the old boys wouldn't play if they were taking a spot away from a top ranked pro.

Perhaps remove the tap on the shoulder and say you have to make 3 cuts on the main tours or be a certain ranking on the Champions Tour.

Are you then suggesting that the amateurs should lose their qualification for The Masters and the Open and US Open.

And both the latter events have regional and final qualification. The USPGA has spots for some club pro's.

And in 2009 Tom Watson would not have played in The Open.

As far as The Masters is concerned I struggle to think of too many over the years who would have been in contention but did not receive an invite.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Are you then suggesting that the amateurs should lose their qualification for The Masters and the Open and US Open.

And both the latter events have regional and final qualification. The USPGA has spots for some club pro's.

And in 2009 Tom Watson would not have played in The Open.

As far as The Masters is concerned I struggle to think of too many over the years who would have been in contention but did not receive an invite.

The USPGA and the club pros is a interesting one. It is run but their pros association so it makes sense to give some club pros the chance to qualify. I am definitely for the Masters calling it a day on some of the previous winners and opening the field up more but I can't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[SammmeBee]

I saw a tweet noting that Bernhard Langer has played in majors against players born 100 years apart. He played against Gene Sarazen (born 1902) in the 1976 Open Championship and Abel Gallegos (born 2002) in this year's Masters.

At least Sarazen and Abel putted properly......I did laugh when the panzer walked off the 9th hole on Sunday and they comment on his shirt flapping in the wind.....but it didn’t move at all when he was putting!!!!

 

[Grant85]

Are you then suggesting that the amateurs should lose their qualification for The Masters and the Open and US Open.

No, I'm not suggesting that. Amatuers qualify based on beating several hundred, or thousand, other competitors in the relevant elite amateur championship. They also play for their own competition at the Masters and is an important 'stepping' stone in the formative years of players.

And both the latter events have regional and final qualification. The USPGA has spots for some club pro's.

FYI - Sam Locke, who was low amatuer at Carnoustie in 2018 played as an amatuer, but came through normal qualifying (i.e. didn't qualify as amateur champion).

The USPGA club pros, I don't agree with. Have the competition with club pros if they want, but in that case replace it was another competition as a major.

And in 2009 Tom Watson would not have played in The Open.

The Open exemption runs to age 60 for past champions. Watson played in 2009 aged 59. I also said that past champions in the masters should keep their exemption if they can make a certain number of cuts or finish a certain ranking on the champions tour. I'm sure Watson at 59 would have fulfilled any meaningful criteria of playing competition golf at elite level. Same as Langer would be able to at 63.

I reckon a lot of these past champions would struggle to do that, albeit if they had to, they might turn up at Augusts with better games.

As far as The Masters is concerned I struggle to think of too many over the years who would have been in contention but did not receive an invite.

The Masters has the weakest field of any major. Since the 'return to golf' post lockdown, there were 5 events (including 3 PGA Tour events) that had stronger fields than the Masters.

Jim Furyk last year was ranked 51 in the world at the time of the Masters and was a birdie away from beating McIlroy to the Players Championship a few weeks previously.
Last year Robert McIntyre finished 6th at the Open and was ranked around 64th at the end of the year when masters invites are provided.

Neither of these could get into the field while Singh, Woosman, Olazabel, Cabrerra, Lyle, Couples etc can turn up and shoot 76 / 78.

Obviously you struggle to think of someone getting involved in a competition they aren't invited to, but its hardly fanciful to suggest that these guys, who had top finishes in big events, couldn't have at least been in contention at the Masters and would certainly improve the standard of competition, even if the past champions stayed in the field.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

[QUOTE="Grant85, post: 2264556, Obviously you struggle to think of someone getting involved in a competition they aren't invited to, but its hardly fanciful to suggest that these guys, who had top finishes in big events, couldn't have at least been in contention at the Masters and would certainly improve the standard of competition, even if the past champions stayed in the field.[/QUOTE]

Actually I find it very fanciful that either of those mentioned would have been a factor in The Masters.

But in any event you appear to be arguing against yourself as when there was a discussion on here about the possibility of this year's Open being rearranged due to lockdown you, if I recall, suggested that the event would not be lessened if pre-qualification was abandoned and the field restricted to the top so many on the OWGR.

It is now nearly 30 years since any of the majors was won by a rank outsider so I don't think the present system(s) of qualification are preventing the real champions from being identified.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Depends what you consider a rank outsider.

At the start of the 2003 Open, Ben Curtis was 396th in the world, 300/1 to win, his only top 25 finish on the PGA Tour was 13th two weeks prior and he was playing in his first Major.

Arguably the biggest rank outsider we've ever seen win.

Fair point, I had forgotten about Curtis (many have?) and was thinking of Daly.

But that's still only two cases in 30 years.

Like so many debates on here this is largely academic as the "good ol' boys" of ANGC aren't likely to be listening to us and its continuing status as a Major will be largely determined by the players whether we like it or not.

 

[robinthehood]

Fair point, I had forgotten about Curtis (many have?) and was thinking of Daly.

But that's still only two cases in 30 years.

Like so many debates on here this is largely academic as the "good ol' boys" of ANGC aren't likely to be listening to us and its continuing status as a Major will be largely determined by the players whether we like it or not.

What about Todd Hamilton? Not many would have had him down to win the Open in 2004

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Been a few unfancied winners in majors over the past 20 years

Curtis , Hamilton , Campbell , even Clarke and Els ( when he won again ) - then player like Micheel , Immelman and even Ye Yang - maybe not huge outsiders but certainly players outside the main bracket.

Every golfer should have the chance to play in the Majors- the Masters imo is poor by allowing returning champions who don’t really play - those spots should be open for further players from rankings or comps wins etc on both tours

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Our own prejudices and interests are often revealed in these types of discussions.

Todd Hamilton had been the record money winner on the Japanese tour as well as a winner on the PGA Tour but the concerns expressed round here seem to be focused on those from the European Tour who miss out.

Anyway as I said we can debate it all we like, it will make no difference.

 

[Grant85]

Actually I find it very fanciful that either of those mentioned would have been a factor in The Masters.

But in any event you appear to be arguing against yourself as when there was a discussion on here about the possibility of this year's Open being rearranged due to lockdown you, if I recall, suggested that the event would not be lessened if pre-qualification was abandoned and the field restricted to the top so many on the OWGR.

It is now nearly 30 years since any of the majors was won by a rank outsider so I don't think the present system(s) of qualification are preventing the real champions from being identified.

More fanciful that guys who have had top finishes in big events are competitive more so than Ian Woosnam or Sandy Lyle being a factor?

In terms of the Open, how am I arguing against myself when I suggested a one off Open with qualifying based on world ranking would be any different to opening up the Masters field and letting more players in the top 75 or so of the world rankings into the event. Very similar points of view.

How is it 30 years since a rank outsider won...? it's only 21 years since Lawrie won the open (ranked well above 100)
YE Yang won the PGA in 2009
Darren Clarke won the Open in 2011
Bradley won the PGA in 2011
All ranked outside the top 100 and I'm pretty sure none of them would have been in the Masters Field the year they won a major championship.

Els won the Open in 2012... don't know his ranking and he obviously had pedigree in years past, but he wasn't in the Masters field that year, yet 3 months later he's Open Champion.

Ok - there's been a shortage since then - but doesn't mean there shouldn't be room to let a few more guys in, even if that is at the expense of guys who are no longer competitive and can't demonstrate that they are.

 

[robinthehood]

Been a few unfancied winners in majors over the past 20 years

Curtis , Hamilton , Campbell , even Clarke and Els ( when he won again ) - then player like Micheel , Immelman and even Ye Yang - maybe not huge outsiders but certainly players outside the main bracket.

Every golfer should have the chance to play in the Majors- the Masters imo is poor by allowing returning champions who don’t really play - those spots should be open for further players from rankings or comps wins etc on both tours

Thats that Masters, make up load of nonsense stuff and call it tradition!

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Thats that Masters, make up load of nonsense stuff and call it tradition!

The qualification for any of the Majors can be likened to dress codes.

"Their club, their rules."

In the case of dress codes the answer offered on here is "if you don't want to conform then don't go to that club".

Surely, therefore, if you don't like the qualification process or how the tournament is conducted then the answer is very similar. Don't watch it.

 

[robinthehood]

The qualification for any of the Majors can be likened to dress codes.

"Their club, their rules."

In the case of dress codes the answer offered on here is "if you don't want to conform then don't go to that club".

Surely, therefore, if you don't like the qualification process or how the tournament is conducted then the answer is very similar. Don't watch it.

Ouch who stole your sweets ?? It's a general comment about the masters...

Patrons
First cut
1st nine
second 9
No running
Crap coverage
No bringin your own stuff
etc
etc
etc

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Ouch who stole your sweets ?? It's a general comment about the masters...

Patrons
First cut
1st nine
second 9
No running
Crap coverage
No bringin your own stuff
etc
etc
etc

Quite the reverse, it sounds like someone has done something unpleasant on your chips.

I have never seen the point in endlessly moaning about something I can't alter or influence. To me that's pointless.

What energy i have I prefer to conserve for more positive actions

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The Masters will never change , it’s their ball game and they make their rules , it won’t change because the players enjoy it and for a lot of them it’s up there as number 1 , I’m not sure why when for me both the US Open and The Open are above the Masters.

 

[robinthehood]

Quite the reverse, it sounds like someone has done something unpleasant on your chips.

I have never seen the point in endlessly moaning about something I can't alter or influence. To me that's pointless.

What energy i have I prefer to conserve for more positive actions

Well you cant alter or influence me, yet youre moaning about me

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The Masters will never change , it’s their ball game and they make their rules , it won’t change because the players enjoy it and for a lot of them it’s up there as number 1 , I’m not sure why when for me both the US Open and The Open are above the Masters.

Totally agree, the things I can think of as to why some players see it as the No1 are possibly for some of the reasons that people don’t like about it, ie, same location, boiler suits, the make up of the field, the behaviour of the crowd, etc

All wrapped up in the word “tradition” whether we/people agree or not.