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 6

post #91 of 120

FedEx points are not part of the criteria.  The criteria is not a secret.  Everyone knows the criteria.  Blixt qualified and Na did not.  You act like it is a web.com event.  And yet it still is one of the most coveted tournaments to win.  Even with older former champions there, the field is still very very strong and the winner definitely deserves all the accolades they get.  Get over it already.

post #92 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Martin View Post
 


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?

I want to point out how ridiculous this sounds ... but before I can do that, it brings up an interesting question:

 

Has anybody ever won the Masters after qualifying for the tournament SOLELY on the fact that they were a past champion?

post #93 of 120

Early season Fedex points are now a qualifying  criteria, news to me. All know the criteria well in advance, get on with it. The invite to past champs is perhaps why the tourney is held in such high regard by the players; adds to the charm of the tourney the first few days; and its arguably tougher to win because its tougher to get into and get experience on the course. Its just different, not necessarily worse. The other majors have their own quirks

 

Kevin Na, thankfully is not there to slow everything down.

post #94 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mozgolf View Post
 

Early season Fedex points are now a qualifying  criteria, news to me. All know the criteria well in advance, get on with it.

No, I compared Na to Blixt when someone said the best are playing in this field.  There are several players in this field who couldn't make a cut on a regular PGA event.

post #95 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Martin View Post
 

No, I compared Na to Blixt when someone said the best are playing in this field.  There are several players in this field who couldn't make a cut on a regular PGA event.

The best (save for Tiger Woods) ARE playing in this tournament.

 

Kevin Na isn't one of them.

post #96 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Martin View Post
 

No, I compared Na to Blixt when someone said the best are playing in this field.  There are several players in this field who couldn't make a cut on a regular PGA event.

 

Well Blixt is there because he:

 

1. Finished fourth in the 2013 PGA Championship

2. Won the Greenbrier Classic on 7/7/2013.

3. Had a top 50 OWGR ranking at the end of 2013.

 

If Na had managed to do any one of those things, he would have made it.  There's not much difference between the two in ability, but Blixt is there because he had the better year in 2013. 

post #97 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Martin View Post
 


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?

 

Rick, it's very simple: Weir, O'Meara, and Stadler playing is not depriving a single person of a spot in the field.

 

Not a one.

 

Ignore any and all past champions, and look at the other qualifying criteria. Consider that your "field." Still a lot of great players in the field.

 

Kevin Na is 73rd in the OWGR. He's high in FedExCup points because he played (reasonably well) in the fall series and a few events earlier this year which were not top-tier events.

 

http://www.augusta.com/masters/players/qualifications

 

  • Masters Tournament Champions (Lifetime)
  • US Open Champions (5 years)
  • British Open Champions (5 years)
  • PGA Champions (5 years)
  • Winners of The Players Championship (3 years)
  • Current US Amateur Champion and the runner-up to the current US Amateur Champion
  • Current British Amateur Champion
  • Current Asian Amateur Champion
  • Current US Amateur Public Links Champion
  • Current US Mid-Amateur Champion
  • The first 16 players, including ties, in the previous year's Masters Tournament
  • The first 8 players, including ties, in the previous year's US Open Championship
  • The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's British Open Championship
  • The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's PGA Championship
  • The 30 leaders on the Final Official PGA Tour Money List for the previous calendar year
  • Winners of PGA Tour events that award a full-point allocation for the season-ending Tour Championship, from previous Masters to current Masters
  • Those qualifying for the previous year's season-ending Tour Championship
  • The 50 leaders on the Final Official World Golf Ranking for the previous calendar year
  • The 50 leaders on the Official World Golf Ranking published during the week prior to the current Masters Tournament
post #98 of 120

Watching Lucas Glover (Ranked >300 world rankings, 10 MCs this season so far) while better performing players on the tour are sitting at home just tells me that this event doesn't bring the absolute best players on the planet - other majors do.  Don't need to explain the criteria for getting into the Masters. I know all about it.

 

Pretty simple.

post #99 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Martin View Post

Watching Lucas Glover (Ranked >300 world rankings, 10 MCs this season so far) while better performing players on the tour are sitting at home just tells me that this event doesn't bring the absolute best players on the planet - other majors do.  Don't need to explain the criteria for getting into the Masters. I know all about it.

Pretty simple.

So... you're against active major winners getting a spot in the field?
post #100 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Martin View Post
 

Watching Lucas Glover (Ranked >300 world rankings, 10 MCs this season so far) while better performing players on the tour are sitting at home just tells me that this event doesn't bring the absolute best players on the planet - other majors do.  Don't need to explain the criteria for getting into the Masters. I know all about it.

 

Pretty simple.

Then why are whining so much about it?  :doh: 

post #101 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Martin View Post
 

Watching Lucas Glover (Ranked >300 world rankings, 10 MCs this season so far) while better performing players on the tour are sitting at home just tells me that this event doesn't bring the absolute best players on the planet - other majors do.  Don't need to explain the criteria for getting into the Masters. I know all about it.

 

Pretty simple.

It is simple.  What isn't simple is the idea that you think Kevin Na or Padraig Harrington are a couple of the "absolute best" players on the planet.

 

Nobody is going to argue that the other majors don't have DEEPER fields, but to suggest that this tournament is faulty because a couple of random medioce pros aren't there is stupid.

 

The "best" might not all get invited, but the "best of the best," you know, the ones that actually have a chance at winning, are all there.

post #102 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Martin View Post
 
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?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Martin View Post
 

Watching Lucas Glover (Ranked >300 world rankings, 10 MCs this season so far) while better performing players on the tour are sitting at home just tells me that this event doesn't bring the absolute best players on the planet - other majors do.  Don't need to explain the criteria for getting into the Masters. I know all about it.

 

Pretty simple.

 

There has to be a qualifications cutoff and it is what it is.  Glover earned his ticket by meeting one of those cutoffs.  If those "better performing players on the tour" continue to perform at a high level, then they will earn their invitations for next year, something they have failed to do for this year's competition.   It's really quite simple.  

 

Since the amateurs never win, maybe they should be cut out of the field too?  The past champions are rewarded with an automatic invitation.  It's just one of the perks for winning, and it's a Master's tradition - the Masters is nothing if not tradition oriented.  Depending on how one looks at it, it's either one of the tournament's most damning or endearing qualities.  The Masters reveres it champions, and as I see it, that is only proper.

post #103 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
There has to be a qualifications cutoff and it is what it is. 

 

Yup. There will always be debateable guys on the margins.  If the best golfers left out are guys like Ryan Palmer and Richard Sterne (the highest ranked guys on the OWGR who didn't make it), there's no major flaw there.  Certainly you could argue that someone like Ryan Palmer or Kevin Na might currently be better than maybe 20-30 guys in this year's field.  But does that really matter? Those are all guys who have accomplished more at this point.

 

And I'm sure there are better golfers than Lucas Glover sitting at home. But none of them has won a recent US Open. 

 

The 2nd worst score yesterday was shot by a guy named Ben Crenshaw.  Certainly there are guys who are better golfers right now who could have taken his spot. But I'd rather be watching a 62 year old Ben Crenshaw shoot an 83, then see some guy in his prime who never really won anything big shoot a 78.

 

On the whole, I think they have the balance about right, between including the best guys now, and showing some respect for previous achievement and history. 

post #104 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Martin View Post
 


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.  

 

 

Logical fallacy.  The claim that the best players are there does not imply that every player that is there is among the best.  Hence your citations of O'Meara and Stadler as an argument that the field does not contain the best is wildly misplaced.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Martin View Post
 


Can you imagine other sports' championships where winners get automatic bids the following seasons based on their one-time success?

 

Yeah, I can.  The UEFA Champions League champion automatically qualifies for the Champions League in the following year even if they did not otherwise qualify.  One big difference is that when this occurs, and it has, it knocks out a team that HAD qualified from the Champions League.  For example, if Chelsea wins the Champions League but finishes 5th in the Premier League (hence not qualifying for the Champions League, since only the top 4 teams in th Premier League qualify for the following year's Champions League) Chelsea will get a spot in the Champions League and the team that finishes 4th in the Premier League, who would normally qualify for the Champions League, is out of luck and doesn;t get in to the Champions League.  Chelsea would take their spot.

 

Something that DOES NOT happen at the Masters, since as Erik has made clear, giving O'Meara or Sadlaer a spot does not eliminate anyone who had otherwise qualified.

post #105 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by acerimusdux View Post

The 2nd worst score yesterday was shot by a guy named Ben Crenshaw.  Certainly there are guys who are better golfers right now who could have taken his spot. But I'd rather be watching a 62 year old Ben Crenshaw shoot an 83, then see some guy in his prime who never really won anything big shoot a 78.

You're right on everything you said except that someone could take his spot -- had Crenshaw decided to not play, the field would have one fewer player in it, not someone else instead of him.

It's not like, say, the U.S. Open this year, where if Michael Campbell (invited as one of the ten most recent Open champions) were to not play, another qualifier would get in. There's not a set number of Masters spots.
post #106 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

Rick, it's very simple: Weir, O'Meara, and Stadler playing is not depriving a single person of a spot in the field.

 

Not a one.

 

Ignore any and all past champions, and look at the other qualifying criteria. Consider that your "field." Still a lot of great players in the field.

 

Kevin Na is 73rd in the OWGR. He's high in FedExCup points because he played (reasonably well) in the fall series and a few events earlier this year which were not top-tier events.

 

http://www.augusta.com/masters/players/qualifications

 

  • Masters Tournament Champions (Lifetime)
  • US Open Champions (5 years)
  • British Open Champions (5 years)
  • PGA Champions (5 years)
  • Winners of The Players Championship (3 years)
  • Current US Amateur Champion and the runner-up to the current US Amateur Champion
  • Current British Amateur Champion
  • Current Asian Amateur Champion
  • Current US Amateur Public Links Champion
  • Current US Mid-Amateur Champion
  • The first 16 players, including ties, in the previous year's Masters Tournament
  • The first 8 players, including ties, in the previous year's US Open Championship
  • The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's British Open Championship
  • The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's PGA Championship
  • The 30 leaders on the Final Official PGA Tour Money List for the previous calendar year
  • Winners of PGA Tour events that award a full-point allocation for the season-ending Tour Championship, from previous Masters to current Masters
  • Those qualifying for the previous year's season-ending Tour Championship
  • The 50 leaders on the Final Official World Golf Ranking for the previous calendar year
  • The 50 leaders on the Official World Golf Ranking published during the week prior to the current Masters Tournament

and you know what that looks very much similar to??? (I guess it is a week field at The Open Championship too, with past champions, Am winners, the Mark McCormick medal winner....those last 2 groups have never won a professional tourney - sheesh!

 

http://www.theopen.com/en/Players/ExemptPlayers.aspx

 

1. The Open Champions aged 60 or under on 20 July 2014.

2. The Open Champions for 2004-2013.

3. The Open Champions finishing in the first 10 and tying for 10th place in The Open Championship 2009-2013.

4. First 10 and anyone tying for 10th place in the 2013 Open Championship at Muirfield.

5. The first 50 players on the OWGR for Week 21, 2014.

6. First 30 in the Race to Dubai for 2013.

7. The BMW PGA Championship winners for 2012-2014.

8. First 5 European Tour members and any European Tour members tying for 5th place, not otherwise exempt, in the top 20 of the Race to Dubai on completion of the 2014 BMW International Open.

9. The US Open Champions for 2010-2014. Blank entry will be made on behalf of the 2014 Champion.

10. The Masters Tournament Champions for 2010-2014.

11. The PGA Champions for 2009-2013.

12. The PLAYERS Champions for 2012-2014.

13. The leading 30 qualifiers for the 2013 TOUR CHAMPIONSHIP.

14. First 5 PGA TOUR members and any PGA TOUR members tying for 5th place, not exempt in the top 20 of the PGA TOUR FedExCup Points List for 2014 on completion of the 2014 Travelers Championship.

15. Playing members of the 2013 Presidents Cup Teams.

16. First and anyone tying for 1st place on the Order of Merit of the Asian Tour for 2013.

17. First and anyone tying for 1st place on the Order of Merit of the Tour of Australasia for 2013.

18. First and anyone tying for 1st place on the Order of Merit of the Southern Africa PGA Sunshine Tour for 2013.

19. The Japan Open Champion for 2013.

20. First 2 and anyone tying for 2nd place, on the Official Money List of the Japan Golf Tour for 2013.

21. First 2 and anyone tying for 2nd place, not exempt having applied B(6) (see page 3) in a cumulative money list taken from all official 2014 Japan Golf Tour events up to and including the 2014 Mizuno Open. Blank entries will be made on behalf of competitors qualifying in this category.

22. The Senior Open Champion for 2013.

23. The Amateur Champion for 2014.

24. The US Amateur Champion for 2013.

25. The International European Amateur Champion for 2013.

26. The Mark H McCormack Medal (Men’s World Amateur Golf Ranking) winner for 2013.

post #107 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by club ho View Post
 
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? 

 

And where is Ernie right now?  Headed home before the weekend to watch on TV with the rest of us.  How's that crow, by the way?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Martin View Post
 

Watching Lucas Glover (Ranked >300 world rankings, 10 MCs this season so far) while better performing players on the tour are sitting at home just tells me that this event doesn't bring the absolute best players on the planet - other majors do.  Don't need to explain the criteria for getting into the Masters. I know all about it.

 

Pretty simple.

 

Yet Glover is at even par, near the middle of the pack and well ahead of many who are ranked above him on the world charts going into the weekend.  Looks to me like the tournament directors have the right idea. :doh: 

post #108 of 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

And where is Ernie right now?  Headed home before the weekend to watch on TV with the rest of us.  How's that crow, by the way?

 

 

Yet Glover is at even par, near the middle of the pack and well ahead of many who are ranked above him on the world charts going into the weekend.  Looks to me like the tournament directors have the right idea. :doh: 


Ernie is the same place that Dustin Johnson, Phil Mickelsen, Luke Donald, Jason Dufner, Sergio, and Zach Johnson are - watching on TV with the rest of us.  Even Hank Haney agrees - said it today. This is the weakest field of the four majors and I agree with him.  When Lucas Glover makes a cut while these top players are home, there's definitely a tricked-up, goofiness to this course as I've always said (been to several Masters at Augusta National).

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)