or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Regarding Masters Snubbing Active Major Winners (and Other Players)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Regarding Masters Snubbing Active Major Winners (and Other Players) - Page 4

post #55 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post

So we're at the following guys who would get exemptions:

Michael Campbell
Todd Hamlton
Ben Curtis
Padraig Harrington
Rich Beem
Retief Goosen
Justin Leonard
Paul Lawrie
Geoff Ogilvy
John Daly
David Toms
Davis Love III


Seems like too many to me.

 

If it's limited to multiple major winners who are active though, then it looks like we're down to Padraig Harrington, Retief Goosen, and John Daly, right? I don't think that would be bad at all, but I still don't really think it's necessary, either.

post #56 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Winning a tournament held 3 months later has nothing to do with whether a player deserves an invitation to the Masters.  The Masters is a privately run competition - qualification is by the criteria set by the tournament committee.  They have every right to set whatever criteria they want.  They choose not to include past winners of  other majors beyond 5 years.  They invite more players who have demonstrated the ability to play well or win more recently.  I don't see any problem with that at all.  I think it would be quite wrong to qualify a player who is 95th on the money list and has only won a single tournament in his life, even though that tournament accidentally happened to be the 2005 PGA Championship (just an example - don't really know who that might have been and I'm not bothering to look it up).  That would be unfair to the guys who would then be cut from the lower end of the world ranking, but who are actually playing far better than that so-called major champion.

 

No matter how it's set up, someone is going to be left out.  I'd rather see the guys in there who are playing the best right now.  Ernie will be playing this year because he still has 4 years of eligibility from his Open win in 2012.  That is how it should be.

 

 

 

Obviously we need to just agree to disagree. My feelings after thinking this whole topic through is that any MULTIPLE MAJOR winner who is under 50 years old and still in possession of a PGA tour card should be automatically included in a major. As it stands I believe this would only qualify Paddy Harrington. To me a very small concession to be made for the rest of the field. Hardly a concession when you think of the ability required to win more than one major let alone three as Paddy did. 

 

You seem to acknowledge that Ernie plays up for majors as opposed to regular tour events. He proved this in his last British Open victory. I believe that Paddy would provide an equally interesting performance.

 

Funny at first posters didn't like this exemptions because it would allow too many underserving players. Now posters complain that it is not right to make a rule change that only affects one or two players.  Go figure!

post #57 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by acerimusdux View Post
 

 

If it's limited to multiple major winners who are active though, then it looks like we're down to Padraig Harrington, Retief Goosen, and John Daly, right? I don't think that would be bad at all, but I still don't really think it's necessary, either.

I don't think Daly has a current PGA card and if that is the case then you are down to just Paddy and Goosen.

post #58 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post

I don't think Daly has a current PGA card and if that is the case then you are down to just Paddy and Goosen.

This seems to imply that Daly still holds a PGA card: http://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/players/player.01249.john-daly.html

Apart from that, and not directed at club ho or anyone else in particular, why do some want an under 50 years old mandate? Might as well make it over 18 as well. To me, let the ability of the player and current playing status dictate qualifications, not their chronological age. And, yeah, I'm over 50, and, yeah, I still have daydreams.

As far as "snubbing" goes, I think The Masters is a little more open than an "Invitational", at least a little. Was there any player in this past Sunday's round, whom if they had won, would have been snubbed and denied entry into The Masters? Every player in the most recent PGA event had a chance to win their way into the Masters ( at least per my understanding ) regardless of their actual chance of winning.
post #59 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by treebound View Post


This seems to imply that Daly still holds a PGA card: http://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/players/player.01249.john-daly.html

Apart from that, and not directed at club ho or anyone else in particular, why do some want an under 50 years old mandate? Might as well make it over 18 as well. To me, let the ability of the player and current playing status dictate qualifications, not their chronological age. And, yeah, I'm over 50, and, yeah, I still have daydreams.

As far as "snubbing" goes, I think The Masters is a little more open than an "Invitational", at least a little. Was there any player in this past Sunday's round, whom if they had won, would have been snubbed and denied entry into The Masters? Every player in the most recent PGA event had a chance to win their way into the Masters ( at least per my understanding ) regardless of their actual chance of winning.

I hae no problem with removing the 50 and under criteria. Hell I fall in the 50 + grouping also.

post #60 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post
 

I believe that Paddy would provide an equally interesting performance.

 

Like last year, where he shot 78-75 and missed the cut, beating only ten other players, some of whom were… Nathan Smith (am), Steven Fox (am), Tom Watson (> 50), Craig Stadler (> 50), Ian Woosnam (>50), Ben Crenshaw (>50)…??????

post #61 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

Like last year, where he shot 78-75 and missed the cut, beating only ten other players, some of whom were… Nathan Smith (am), Steven Fox (am), Tom Watson (> 50), Craig Stadler (> 50), Ian Woosnam (>50), Ben Crenshaw (>50)…??????
Yeah, but still ...
post #62 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

Like last year, where he shot 78-75 and missed the cut, beating only ten other players, some of whom were… Nathan Smith (am), Steven Fox (am), Tom Watson (> 50), Craig Stadler (> 50), Ian Woosnam (>50), Ben Crenshaw (>50)…??????

Make a list of players who never have stunk it up at some point in a major and missed a cut before you cherry pick your reasons for not giving a player with 3 majors still in his prime the boot. Even Tiger has had a bad performance in the last few years. 

 

I like to think that Ernie Els showed them they were wrong when he won the British Open.

post #63 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post

Make a list of players who never have stunk it up at some point in a major and missed a cut before you cherry pick your reasons for not giving a player with 3 majors still in his prime the boot. Even Tiger has had a bad performance in the last few years.

@club ho, man, I don't know how many times people have to tell you, but Padraig Harrington is not in his prime. He has been playing like crap.

You said he elevates his game for the majors. His results in last years Masters directly speak to the fact that he is incapable of doing so in his current state of play.

He didn't qualify, and allowing one former major champion to play simply because you think he should be able to does not justify rewriting the rules. Most years, people who definitely do not deserve to play would get in under the same rules that will occasionally allow a Padraig or and Ernie to play.
post #64 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post


@club ho, man, I don't know how many times people have to tell you, but Padraig Harrington is not in his prime. He has been playing like crap.

You said he elevates his game for the majors. His results in last years Masters directly speak to the fact that he is incapable of doing so in his current state of play.

He didn't qualify, and allowing one former major champion to play simply because you think he should be able to does not justify rewriting the rules. Most years, people who definitely do not deserve to play would get in under the same rules that will occasionally allow a Padraig or and Ernie to play.

I respectfully disagree with you. Yes he missed the cut from his last tournament but he injured his a finger during the second day and ended up shooting a 78.  You probably championed seeing Ernie not allowed to play the Masters a couple of years ago. Did you feel like eating crow when he won the British Open? 

post #65 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post
 

I respectfully disagree with you. Yes he missed the cut from his last tournament but he injured his a finger during the second day and ended up shooting a 78.  You probably championed seeing Ernie not allowed to play the Masters a couple of years ago. Did you feel like eating crow when he won the British Open?

 

 As much as I like Harrington he hasn't done anything in about four years and is plummeting in the WGR. He won his Majors over five years ago so he is out in that regard. Stewart Cink is ranked about the same as Harrington in the WGR, but he is inside the five year window so he gets to tee it up one more time, but I expect this will be his last. Sucks for Harrington, but he is certainly past his prime and does not fit the criteria.

post #66 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post
 

 

 As much as I like Harrington he hasn't done anything in about four years and is plummeting in the WGR. He won his Majors over five years ago so he is out in that regard. Stewart Cink is ranked about the same as Harrington in the WGR, but he is inside the five year window so he gets to tee it up one more time, but I expect this will be his last. Sucks for Harrington, but he is certainly past his prime and does not fit the criteria.

I would never tell someone how to think and I respect your opinion. I do agree that one time major winners do not deserve any special criteria. However two and definitely three time major winners who are under fifty years of age do IMO. 

post #67 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post
 

You probably championed seeing Ernie not allowed to play the Masters a couple of years ago. Did you feel like eating crow when he won the British Open? 

Those are completely unrelated events.

 

A)  He didn't play in the Masters because he didn't qualify.

B)  He won a tournament 3 months later.

 

It sounds like you probably championed the idea that he should get a special invite to the Masters that year.  Did you feel like eating crow when he shot +6 at Harbour Town the following week and missed the cut?  Or in May of that year when he shot +4 at the Players and missed that cut as well?  Of course not, because they have nothing to do with each other.

 

He. Didn't. Qualify.

post #68 of 120

It's a nice idea to have all major winners there but you can't play everyone, and too much new talent could miss out to players who are out of form and haven't done a thing for years.  Naturally the past green jackets get a spot, thats part of the tournament, but I think they get it right leaving it at that.

 

You have to be good enough to play the masters, thats the point, it's the elite players on the elite course each year.  If your going to the masters, it's because you earned it.  And we get to watch all the best talent of the present tours including lots of young guns who fought to qualify for the first time, and trying to live with the course!!

 

I dont think it would enhance the occassion with lots of no hope out of form old major winners all adding to the +par category.

post #69 of 120

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post

I do agree that one time major winners do not deserve any special criteria.

 

Do you?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by club ho View Post
 

I believe that any active former major winner who is under 50 years of age should be allowed to play in any of the majors. By active I mean still playing on either the PGA or European tour. To me having multiple major winners like Ernie Els or Paddy Harrington not being able to play is wrong.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post
 

 

Maybe I am not making myself clear. I am saying that a major winner who still has an active PGA or European card should automatically qualify to play in any majors including the Masters.

 

 

Well, at least you've been consistent.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post
 

I agree that this exemption should only exist for multiple major winners. That would definitely minimize the number of players playing under this exemption rule.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post

I do agree that one time major winners do not deserve any special criteria. However two and definitely three time major winners who are under fifty years of age do IMO.

post #70 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post

I respectfully disagree with you. Yes he missed the cut from his last tournament but he injured his a finger during the second day and ended up shooting a 78.

He shot 78 in the first round last year.

He's played like crap for several years. No denying that. Others are playing better and deserve to play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post

You probably championed seeing Ernie not allowed to play the Masters a couple of years ago. Did you feel like eating crow when he won the British Open?

No. It was three months later and for all we know missing the Masters is what spurred him to raise his game.
post #71 of 120

@club ho, here's how I see your position.  You're having trouble articulating your criteria (one major, two, three?) and you can't seem to name another "deserving" player besides Paddy.  My take is that you don't really believe the Masters should change their invitation criteria.

 

What you're basically arguing for is a special invitation for Paddy based on special circumstances.  I can't argue with that--by definition, a special invitation is based on individualized factors and circumstances.  It can't be right or wrong--it just is.

 

I personally argued heavily on this forum for Ernie to get a special invitation in 2012 based on the following factors:

--he was a multiple major winner

--he was just inducted into the HoF

--he only missed a regular invitation by a few spots in OWGR

--he had several solid finishes in the weeks leading up to the 2012 Masters and came very close to winning.

 

My primary criteria for urging a special invitation for Ernie was that he was sooo close in getting in.  Without that, I wouldn't have felt it warranted.  And, for that same reason, I don't think Paddy deserves a special invite.

post #72 of 120

@club ho, let's be honest here: Padraig Harrington is ranked #174 in the OWGR. He's playing like crap (for a PGA Tour player).

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Regarding Masters Snubbing Active Major Winners (and Other Players)