Monty criticises Masters invite criteria

[Ruari]

... my original point was that he deserves a place at the Masters as an invitee, instead of falling down the pecking order to an asian player who has not achieved what Monty has achieved in his career.

I'm afraid I don't agree. He hasn't had a good year by his standards and he simply isn't playing well right now. If he went, then there's the danger of severe public embarrassment, on a stage that means a lot to him. He had to finish top four in the last WGC to qualify for the Masters; he ended up 60-oddth.

He's done a lot, no doubt about that, but no-one has the automatic right. I mean, would you have picked Thomas Bjorn for the Ryder Cup team 2 years ago, ahead of Westwood? There's no reason why Monty has more right to an invite ahead of those ranked 51-74 on the OGWR. If him, why not them? The Masters has always been an 'invitational' (though latterly more as a courtesy today than a reality) and the Committee has always invited people from around the world, regardless of their current rankings, if they think they're worth a look from the wider world. We know about Monty; we don't know about the Asians and yes, it is an opportunity to promote golf to a broader public.

Id like to more about the situation last year where he was meant to have bent the rules to qualify for the Masters. That is pure conjecture i would say, and if so, how come the officials didnt DQ him?

A tournament in the Far East was suspended due to thunderstorm. He left his ball where it was but didn't mark it. When play resumed, it was found that someone had stolen it. He took advice and replaced his ball where it was generally agreed it had been. Later video comparisons demonstrated that it hadn't been put back in exactly the right place. Opinions differ as to what advantage he gained, if any.

When the matter was pointed out to him, some weeks later, he donated his prizemoney to a tsunami relief charity. It was a judgement call by the rules official there at the time as to whether he should have been penalized for failure to mark the position of his ball. Should have been end of story but Monty has always attracted a lot of jealousy and generated some simmering anger, to be fair. It clearly was in a different position, and marginally better, but it wasn't that far away and the difference wasn't great. Some moaning so-and-so, named Gary Evans (who had no chance of qualifying for anything, including the weekend) made the accusation that 'there has been smoke around Monty before' and '98 per cent of players were concerned about the ruling'. There was no evidence presented to support either assertion and my understanding is that Evans was told to keep his gob shut in public in future. His fourth place in the tournament enabled him to qualify for the US Open 2005.

I get the feeling that on the whole Monty is not very popular in the States, and therefore is not being given a fair crack but some posters?

I get the impression that he's particularly unpopular in the NE USA - remember Brookline 1999? And no, I don't think he's given a fair crack of the whip. I'm really not sure why, other than he reacts to barracking and taunting and there's a (usually well-oiled) section of the crowds in America that seems to love winding him up. Not that you have to have had any in order to get a reaction: I've been subjected to Monty's glare on-course, and it ain't a thing of beauty!

(I congratulated him on a good putt!) He's not the first to have a 'difficult' professional persona; history is punctuated with examples of outstanding players whose on-course disposition was less than sunny, including Faldo, Hogan, etc. But the contrast with Monty off-course is total: meet him in a social setting and he's charming, witty, caring, generous and great company. But that ain't enough, obviously.

[Ruari]

but the Asian players who have been invited are lower down in the world rankings, thats my reasoning. Im a bit taken a back by what the moderators have said about this, one in particular..i couldn't get away with saying it.

I agree with you latter point.

(I had to extend this to nine characters - I just wanted to say 'yes'!)

[mikelz]

I agree with you latter point.

LOL (plus at least 6 characters)

I'm with you.

[r7 425]

Monty doesnt know what hes doing by criticizing..hes the one guy that i would think would be a lock for the Masters every year (World Rankings) his game isnt that great right now--he should just focus on winning in europe more than going to the Masters

[Ruari]

Monty doesnt know what hes doing by criticizing..hes the one guy that i would think would be a lock for the Masters every year (World Rankings) his game isnt that great right now--he should just focus on winning [deleted] more than going to the Masters

Now, don't get carried away with this agreeing with me stuff.

I've just banged my head as I snapped it back in amazement. If I draw blood, it's gonna cost ya...

[golf_junkie27]

Monty in his prime was as long as most people on either tour. I agree that his best days are gone, but my original point was that he deserves a place at the Masters as an invitee, instead of falling down the pecking order to an asian player who has not achieved what Monty has achieved in his career.

Golf is not the Academy Awards. We don't give out "Lifetime Achievement Awards" to someone who was not actually good enough to win.

The Masters invitations is not about career achievement. This has nothing to do with popularity. This is about PERFORMANCE. He's never won on US Soil, he's had ONE top 10 Finish at the Masters and has failed to make the cut 7 straight times. As I posted, earlier, the Asian who has not achieved like Monty, I'll use Singh, as my example, has played better than Monty, this year. Like I wrote, in the same to two tournaments, he's been 34 strokes, better. He's also ranked 30 slots, higher, than Monty, on the European Tour. Look, you love Monty, it's obvious. You are entitled to your opinion. However, you fail to recognize one important factor. His game on US Soil and his history at the Masters dictates that an invitation is actually an INSULT to golfing fans and other golfers, period.

[Ruari]

Golf is not the Academy Awards. We don't give out "Lifetime Achievement Awards" to someone who was not actually good enough to actually win.

Just to keep us in the realms of reality - Monty has won, almost as many times as Ballesteros - just not on the PGA Tour. He's a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame in the fullness of time.

The Masters invitations is not about career achievement.

It has been known...and every winner, ever, is invited back every year until they're ...is it down to 60 now? Or still 65?

As I posted, earlier, the Asian who has not achieved like Monty, I'll use Singh, as my example, has played better than Monty, this year.

You're correct, if you're talking about Jeev Milka Singh. He is playing better and deserves the shout.

He's also ranked 30 slots, higher, than Monty, on the European Tour.

Early days, yet. Monty's form isn't good at the moment but he has been known to come back from this setback before.

Look, you love Monty, it's obvious. You are entitled to your opinion. However, you fail to recognize one important factor. His game on US Soil and his history at the Masters dictates that an invitation is actually an

I think you go a little over the top here. The Masters is an event with international status so performance on US soil is far from being the sole criterion. If that was the basis, then Arjun Atwal would never stand a chance of an invitation, based on his performances in the Nationwide Tour.

[Ruari]

iacas (or any of the other mods)

I asked for clarification on the disappearance of one of my posts some time ago - no response.

If the post was abusive, please point out how.
If it was personally insulting, ditto.
If I made points that were factually inaccurate, why not respond and correct me?
If it merely got up someone's nose because I was making points you didn't agree with then can I remind you of your country's fine tradition of free speech?
If the final point was a bit close to the bone, then either respond publicly or possibly revise the editorial approach.

Or do you want me to go through the whole thing again and repost?? Tiresome, but it can be achieved!

[Ruari]

Just as I was about to leave, the e-mail tinged and I have a response. It took a while to come through all them firewalls, obviously...

Couldn't leave without correcting the matter.

[iacas]

iacas (or any of the other mods)

This is not the place to address specific individuals. We have private messages for this. Doing so here is drastically off-topic.

I asked for clarification on the disappearance of one of my posts some time ago - no response.

Incorrect. You received a response within about ten minutes of sending your PM. I know this because I wrote the response and saw the time stamps.

I'm glad you later acknowledge the response. Perhaps if you're so eagerly anticipating a response in the future, you will make a point of refreshing your PM inbox more frequently than once every two hours or waiting for an email that's sent out in batches. I did not delete whatever post you claim was deleted, but another moderator or admin did, and I'll stand behind their decision. As I said in my PM to you, the only guess I have is that someone badly mis-used the "quote" functionality, making the post difficult to read, and it was removed for that reason. Perhaps that was you. This thread has gone through about four or five different topics now, seen plenty of name-calling, and this airing of (false) claims puts it over the edge. It's closed now.