Should Ernie Els Get a Masters Invitation?

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Honestly?

His absence wouldn't even be noticed.

Johnny Miller made the point during Bay Hill while Ernie was missing short putts down the stretch, that golf is not nostalgic. It does not grant favors to the greats of the past. It's ball in hole in fewest strokes, always. That can be cruel, but it is also the basic tenet of the game. Ernie didn't get it done (this assumes he doesn't win Houston. If he does, then welcome to the Masters Ernie...you earned it).

But that's it. He didn't get it done. And the tournament will not miss a beat in his absence.

It's my world, I can live in it any way I want

I personally really enjoy watching Ernie Els swing a golf club. It's ok if you don't.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Johnny Miller made the point during Bay Hill while Ernie was missing short putts down the stretch, that golf is not nostalgic. It does not grant favors to the greats of the past. It's ball in hole in fewest strokes, always. That can be cruel, but it is also the basic tenet of the game.

Johnny Miller did say that, and it is true WRT golf in general.  But it is completely not true as applied to the Masters.  Nostalgia is the "basic tenet" of the Masters.  The Champions Dinner, the lifetime exemption for former winners, the Sarazen Bridge, the "shot heard round the world", the waiting list for badges that's been closed for fifty years, and even the $1.25 pimento cheese sandwiches are all evidence of this.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Johnny Miller did say that, and it is true WRT golf in general.  But it is completely not true as applied to the Masters.  Nostalgia is the "basic tenet" of the Masters.  The Champions Dinner, the lifetime exemption for former winners, the Sarazen Bridge, the "shot heard round the world", the waiting list for badges that's been closed for fifty years, and even the $1.25 pimento cheese sandwiches are all evidence of this.

Okay. And exactly where does Ernie Els fit within all this nostalgia? He's never won it, so he's not part of the dinner. I don't believe they've named any structures on the grounds after him. I think he had a couple of 2nd-place finishes. Well so did Norman. Ed Sneed had it won until he bogeyed the last three holes in 1979. Trevino was the greatest player never to win The Masters. Should we honor them too?

Bottom line, unless he wins Houston this week, Els does not deserve to be there, unless the selection committee decides to toss him an invite.

[ghalfaire]

I voted no and I like Ernie.  But I also believe that golf should be personality neutral (yes I know that isn't the way it is but it's the way it should be) with respect to getting to play in majors.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Okay. And exactly where does Ernie Els fit within all this nostalgia? He's never won it, so he's not part of the dinner. I don't believe they've named any structures on the grounds after him. I think he had a couple of 2nd-place finishes. Well so did Norman. Ed Sneed had it won until he bogeyed the last three holes in 1979. Trevino was the greatest player never to win The Masters. Should we honor them too?

Did either Ed Sneed or Lee Trevino have multiple top-5 finishes on the PGA Tour this year?  Did either Ed Sneed or Lee Trevino qualify for the last 18 Masters in a row?  Are either Ed Sneed or Lee Trevino within a couple OWGR ranking points of making it into the tournament on the qualification criteria?

If so, then I'd say that Lee was an excellent candidate for a special invite, but Ed Sneed isn't.  Because Lee is also a HoF'er and multiple major winner.

Picking out one of the many reasons that support Ernie's case, then finding an octogenarian who also did that once, and trying to say that they would deserve as much consideration as Ernie, doesn't make your argument sound more convincing.

[BruceMGF]

Should the selection committee invite anyone not otherwise qualified?

If so, who and on what criteria?

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Did either Ed Sneed or Lee Trevino have multiple top-5 finishes on the PGA Tour this year?  Did either Ed Sneed or Lee Trevino qualify for the last 18 Masters in a row?  Are either Ed Sneed or Lee Trevino within a couple OWGR ranking points of making it into the tournament on the qualification criteria?

If so, then I'd say that Lee was an excellent candidate for a special invite, but Ed Sneed isn't.  Because Lee is also a HoF'er and multiple major winner.

Picking out one of the many reasons that support Ernie's case, then finding an octogenarian who also did that once, and trying to say that they would deserve as much consideration as Ernie, doesn't make your argument sound more convincing.

Was just pointing out how subjective the selection process could be.

Look, I got nothing against Els. If he gets an invite I think that's wonderful. But let's not pretend he's earned it.

[Dave H]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

But let's not pretend he's earned it.

Is anyone actually doing that? It seems that at least most people are in agreement that he hasn't earned based on the qualifying criteria.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by Dave H

Is anyone actually doing that?

Dunno. Just sayin'.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Was just pointing out how subjective the selection process could be.

Look, I got nothing against Els. If he gets an invite I think that's wonderful. But let's not pretend he's earned it.

Earned it according to the current selection criteria, NO, but earned it as being one of the top players in the World, YES.

I think the selection process is already subjective- I say this because many of the categories are not really designed to get the best players into the field.  If you look just at 2012 performance, Els is at least top 40 in the World.  If he was in the Masters, he might not be favored to win it, but I think he would have lower odds than at least half the field (and would be less of a long shot than Ryo Ishikawa who got a special invite).  Combined with the fact he is a Hall of Famer, then it seems a no brainer that he should get an invite.

I understand that the Masters likes to be exclusive, but it is the reason that it has the weakest field of all the majors- adding Els would strengthen the field.

Keegan Bradley didn`t play well enough early in 2011 to merit consideration, but imagine if he had post some top 5 finishes early, was high in the Fed Ex Cup list and was ranked top 60 in the World going into Augusta...it would have been a shame not to see him invited even if he hadn`t "earned" it.  Remember the OWGR is based on a 2 year period and is mathematically flawed with how they compute weighted average.  To get the best current players, it makes sense to consider current year performance to date.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Earned it according to the current selection criteria, NO, but earned it as being one of the top players in the World, YES.

I think the selection process is already subjective- I say this because many of the categories are not really designed to get the best players into the field.  If you look just at 2012 performance, Els is at least top 40 in the World.  If he was in the Masters, he might not be favored to win it, but I think he would have lower odds than at least half the field (and would be less of a long shot than Ryo Ishikawa who got a special invite).  Combined with the fact he is a Hall of Famer, then it seems a no brainer that he should get an invite.

I understand that the Masters likes to be exclusive, but it is the reason that it has the weakest field of all the majors- adding Els would strengthen the field.

Keegan Bradley didn`t play well enough early in 2011 to merit consideration, but imagine if he had post some top 5 finishes early, was high in the Fed Ex Cup list and was ranked top 60 in the World going into Augusta...it would have been a shame not to see him invited even if he hadn`t "earned" it.  Remember the OWGR is based on a 2 year period and is mathematically flawed with how they compute weighted average.  To get the best current players, it makes sense to consider current year performance to date.

I don't know about weakest field - I could make the case the PGA Championship is weaker since it's littered with club pros who have no shot of winning.

The Masters is the smallest field, so it doesn't have the depth of the other majors.  But I don't know about it being the weakest.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

I don't know about weakest field - I could make the case the PGA Championship is weaker since it's littered with club pros who have no shot of winning.

The Masters is the smallest field, so it doesn't have the depth of the other majors.  But I don't know about it being the weakest.

I think the PGA has something like 20 club pros, but at least 140 total players- even eliminating the club pros, you still have at least 120 really good players.  The Masters typically has less than 100 total, including the guys with little chance like older Champions and Ams.

[brocks]

I don't know about weakest field - I could make the case the PGA Championship is weaker since it's littered with club pros who have no shot of winning. The Masters is the smallest field, so it doesn't have the depth of the other majors.  But I don't know about it being the weakest.

Sorry, that's completely wrong. The PGA has had the strongest field of any event, other majors included, for the last several years. The Masters is usually weaker than the Players, and may even be weaker than the first FedEx Playoff event. The PGA typically has at least 98 of the top 100 players in the world rankings, and the other two aren't there because of injury. The Masters isn't even letting Ernie play with a ranking in the top 60. And if you think a smaller field isn't weaker, even if it has a higher average quality, just compare Tiger's record in the majors with his record in the WGC's. Through 2009, Tiger's win percentage in majors was around 30%. His winning percentage in regular events was about the same, or even a bit lower. But his winning percentage in stroke play WGC's was over 60%. The majors and WGC's had about the same top 60 players, so it was the second tier players that made the majors harder to win. You never know when a Lucas Glover or Michael Campbell will get in through the qualifiers, and win.

[jhwmusic]

I don't know about weakest field - I could make the case the PGA Championship is weaker since it's littered with club pros who have no shot of winning.

The Masters is the smallest field, so it doesn't have the depth of the other majors.  But I don't know about it being the weakest.

This entire post is just, well, wrong...wrong on pretty much every level. At least we know you aren't a wiki or google poster though. You know, one of the guys with their fake golf knowledge that google "major championship" and start rattling off all these stats...guys like Skip Bayliss. Half of these guys just started playing golf 3 years ago, but somehow they know what Jack Nicklaus scored on the 14 hole in the 3rd round of the 1973 Masters. So despite how far from the truth your post was, you have proven you are honest at the very least.

[k-troop]

Umm, yeah. What they said.

[brocks]

At least we know you aren't a wiki or google poster though. You know, one of the guys with their fake golf knowledge that google "major championship" and start rattling off all these stats...guys like Skip Bayliss. Half of these guys just started playing golf 3 years ago, but somehow they know what Jack Nicklaus scored on the 14 hole in the 3rd round of the 1973 Masters. So despite how far from the truth your post was, you have proven you are honest at the very least.

???? Unless a guy is claiming he was there when Jack sank the putt, I don't understand what is dishonest about checking your facts before you post, and I would prefer a poster who quotes accurate stats from wiki over one who quotes inaccurate stats from memory, or from "everybody knows..."

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by jhwmusic

This entire post is just, well, wrong...wrong on pretty much every level. At least we know you aren't a wiki or google poster though. You know, one of the guys with their fake golf knowledge that google "major championship" and start rattling off all these stats...guys like Skip Bayliss. Half of these guys just started playing golf 3 years ago, but somehow they know what Jack Nicklaus scored on the 14 hole in the 3rd round of the 1973 Masters. So despite how far from the truth your post was, you have proven you are honest at the very least.

He made a par.

Uhhh....thanks I think. But bear in mind it's my opinion & therefore not right or wrong - it's what I believe, which is, the PGA is a celebration of the PGA of America & it's the club pro's one chance to play a big event. But they got no chance of winning it. None.

Now, the same can be said of the amateurs in The Masters. So quid pro quo.

This isn't an opinion I will go to the mat defending, as opposed to, oh, some saying Tiger isn't a good wind player. The case can certainly be made The Masters is the weakest field.

[brocks]

But bear in mind it's my opinion & therefore not right or wrong - it's what I believe, which is, the PGA is a celebration of the PGA of America & it's the club pro's one chance to play a big event. But they got no chance of winning it. None.

Actually, that's a great example of an opinion that IS flat wrong. Can we agree that the club pros have no chance of winning the PGA, and that the Doug Fords (i.e, former Masters champs in their 70's) and the amateurs have no chance of winning the Masters? Swell, then we've got the Masters down to about 90 guys with even a hope of winning. The thing is, unless they are injured, all 90 of those guys will be in the PGA, plus another 46 who can win if they get hot, like John Daly did when he was the ninth alternate, i.e. 155th on the list. Modern fields are so deep that any active touring pro who qualifies is capable of winning. Ben Curtis was ranked 396th in the world, was playing in his first major, and had a career total of zero top tens in PGA events when he won the Open. In fact, he got his very first career top 25 in the event he played prior to that (2003) Open. The guy knew how to peak. Yes, there are 20 club pros in the field of 156, and they don't have a chance of winning. But the other 136 pros do. There are 50% more players who can win in the PGA field than in the Masters field. So unless half the Masters field comes down with smallpox right before the PGA, there is no way in hell that its field is as strong as the PGA's.