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 5

post #73 of 120

Because most of the same reasoning applies....

 

http://thesandtrap.com/t/56465/should-ernie-els-get-a-masters-invitation

post #74 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post
 

 

 

 

Well, at least you've been consistent.

 

 

And your point is?

post #75 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post
 

And your point is?

I believe his point was sarcasm.

post #76 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post
 

And your point is?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

I believe his point was sarcasm.

 

No, no point.  In fact, this is getting tedious.  I think I'll go pour a glass of wine, make a big SALAD, and watch some basketball.

post #77 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

@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).

 

 

Just want to make sure that doesn't get lost in the shuffle.

 

174th.

 

A list of the illustrious players ahead of him includes:

Marco Crespi

Gaganjeet Bhullar

Siddikur Rahman

Wu Ashun

Jaco Van Zyl

Emiliano Grillo

Julien Quesne

Romain Wattel

Greg Bourdy

Hennie Otto

Anirban Lahiri

 

Etc.

post #78 of 120

Harrington might have provided a bit more useful competition in the 2014 Masters than, say, Woosie or Sandy Lyle; but they earned their invites for life back in the '80s and early '90s - much as Harrington, in 2007, earned his guaranteed invite to the Open until his 60th birthday.

 

I understand the rules about guaranteed entry into major tournaments for former winners past their prime might seem unfair to up and coming players, and also to established players who otherwise fall short of the entry criteria, but such entries add to the charm of the major tournaments, and there doesn't seem to be a strong case for bending them to accommodate (in this instance) the 174th ranked player.


Edited by ScouseJohnny - 4/7/14 at 7:39pm
post #79 of 120
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScouseJohnny View Post
 

Harrington might have provided a bit more useful competition in the 2014 Masters than, say, Woosie or Sandy Lyle; but they earned their invites for life back in the '80s and early '90s - much as Harrington, in 2007, earned his guaranteed invite to the Open until his 60th birthday.

 

I understand the rules about guaranteed entry into major tournaments for former winners past their prime might seem unfair to up and coming players, and also to established players who otherwise fall short of the entry criteria, but such entries add to the charm of the major tournaments, and there doesn't seem to be a strong case for bending them to accommodate (in this instance) the 174th ranked player.

I believe this is the best comment I have read about this issue. Obviously it is what it is and Paddy will not play this year. If and when Paddy picks off another major I will be back to remind the unbelievers on this board.

post #80 of 120

@club ho ,

 

We are not saying that we don't like Harrington or that we don't want him to play better.  We are just stating that he is not playing up to the level required by the Masters for entry.  You are responding like we all hate Harrington when that is not the case.  

post #81 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post
 

I believe this is the best comment I have read about this issue. Obviously it is what it is and Paddy will not play this year. If and when Paddy picks off another major I will be back to remind the unbelievers on this board.

 

He may very well do that, but he is not playing to the level required to compete right now. It's plain old stick-your-head-in-the-sand-plug-your-ears-and-hum-a-tune to suggest otherwise.

post #82 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post
 

I believe this is the best comment I have read about this issue. Obviously it is what it is and Paddy will not play this year. If and when Paddy picks off another major I will be back to remind the unbelievers on this board.

 

I would love to see it. Until then....

post #83 of 120

Maybe those who are "snubbed" could play in the par-3 event, because that last time I looked the Master is an invitational tournament. The most limited field of any major, which makes it the toughest to get into and some say the easiest to win. "Easy" because there are so many who are invited, but have no realistic chance come Sunday.

 

If the players who are active on tour feel like they are being snubbed then they can either win a tournament, or place high enough for long enough to get into the top 50 OWGR.

 

This is not an Open championship, nor is it one in which PGA club professionals can play well in their qualifying event to gain entry - not diminishing anyone who qualifies for either Open or the PGA; but the Masters is and hopefully always will be an invitational event.

post #84 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Fairway View Post
 

Maybe those who are "snubbed" could play in the par-3 event, because that last time I looked the Master is an invitational tournament. The most limited field of any major, which makes it the toughest to get into and some say the easiest to win. "Easy" because there are so many who are invited, but have no realistic chance come Sunday.

 

Yes if you've won a major you can play in the par 3 tournament, also includes past US and British Amateur champions. 

post #85 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shindig View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

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

You might be pleased to know that the guy who won the 2005 PGA Championship is invited to compete in the 2014 Masters, and I think he's expected to play, too. However, his invite criteria for this year's event wasn't because of his status as the 2005 PGA Champion.
 

 

That has nothing to do with the point I was making.  I picked a year out of a hat and what actually happened that year was irrelevant.

 

Quote:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post

the British Open (yeah, I know the real name) claiming to have tradition.  Think about what the Open Championship field

I'm pretty sure you know which major tournament actually has the phrase "Open Championship" on its trophy...

 

So what?  You are just arguing for arguing's sake, not to make a point which is pertinent to the discussion.

post #86 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

That has nothing to do with the point I was making.  I picked a year out of a hat and what actually happened that year was irrelevant.

I think it backs up your point -- some past active major winners found ways to qualify, independent of their non-Masters major wins.
post #87 of 120

Its their own tournament and its nice to see something a bit different in terms of qualifying. Its the only major always played on the same course, should they take it on the road as well?

post #88 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mozgolf View Post
 

Its their own tournament and its nice to see something a bit different in terms of qualifying. Its the only major always played on the same course, should they take it on the road as well?


Sure it's their own tournament, but it's one of the key events in the golf world in determining the world number one.  Having the best golfers on the planet should be the goal if the Masters has so much weight in the world rankings.  Beating invitees of has-beens, oldtimers, amateurs shouldn't have the weight of the other majors.

post #89 of 120

Damn you are right, the Masters is just so easy to win!  While they are at it they could rename it the Augusta WGC. The current best players are always there. If an Ernie or whoever has a form slump that's life. In reality his omission probably motivated him to get his game in order and win the next Open!

post #90 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mozgolf View Post
 

Damn you are right, the Masters is just so easy to win!  While they are at it they could rename it the Augusta WGC. The current best players are always there. If an Ernie or whoever has a form slump that's life. In reality his omission probably motivated him to get his game in order and win the next Open!


Na is 14th in FedEx and sitting at home.  Bllixt is 100th.  Both have played nearly the same number of events this season. I'm not so sure the "current" best are there. There are others on the FEDEX list that could easily be on the top of this leaderboard. Is Weir really among the best? O'Meara? Craig Stadler - some of the players can't even win on the champions tour.  The tournament is set up to propagate the success of it's winners. Can you imagine other sports' championships where winners get automatic bids the following seasons based on their one-time success?

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)