Should Ernie Els Get a Masters Invitation?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by brocks

Actually, that's a great example of an opinion that IS flat wrong.

It can be wrong (but then it's just a fact) if you can agree to a way of defining "strength." Until then, you can have an opinion about how good that opinion is, or it can simply be one with which you disagree, but it can't be wrong.

FWIW, I disagree that the Masters has a stronger field than the PGA Championship. If we can define "field strength" by total world ranking points of all players in the field (summation, not average), then we could definitively prove which one had a "stronger" field (it'd be the PGA, I'm guessing, by quite a bit).

So Zip, how would you define field strength?

[zipazoid]

Well, again. This isn't an opinion that I feel strongly about. But to play along...

If we can agree that in either The Masters or the PGA Championship there's about, say, 50 guys with a chance of winning, then anyone beyond those 50 is moot. In The Masters that would be the Doug Fords in the field. In the PGA it would be the club pros.

So if you were to add up all the world rankings in aggregate form, of course the PGA would rank higher. There's more players. And further, that's essentially the argument (the only one, really) for the PGA having a stronger field - cuz it's larger.

But in terms of the quality of the field, I wouldn't call the PGA stronger than The Masters. They both attract the top players. So it depends on how you want to look at it.

And again brocks...only facts can be right or wrong. Opinions are just that - opinions. Disagreeing with an opinion doesn't make it wrong. It makes it something you don't agree with.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

If we can agree that in either The Masters or the PGA Championship there's about, say, 50 guys with a chance of winning, then anyone beyond those 50 is moot.

We can't, no. Not even close.

In the Masters I think that's not far off. In the PGA it's discounting more than half the field (that can legitimately win). The fact that the guy who won the last PGA didn't even play in any of the previous three majors speaks to that.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by iacas

We can't, no. Not even close.

In the Masters I think that's not far off. In the PGA it's discounting more than half the field (that can legitimately win). The fact that the guy who won the last PGA didn't even play in any of the previous three majors speaks to that.

Which explains Rich Beem & Shaun Micheel winning it.

But okay. If we can't agree on that basic point then you're right - the PGA is the stronger field, since guys outside the top 50 have a chance to pull a stunner. That can't happen at The Masters since those players wouldn't be in the field to begin with.

Like I said - not an opinion I'm feel strongly about.

[zipazoid]

Ed: the OT stuff is now here: http://thesandtrap.com/t/56762/facts-vs-opinions

Originally Posted by brocks

In my opinion.

Indeed.

And within the context you are framing it, I would think an 'opinion' on which golf championship has a stronger field would be more akin to the mustard v ketchup debate as opposed to the Hitler v Gandhi debate. In other words, nobody really gives a damn what a bunch of golf wonks think about a couple of tournaments a bunch of millionaires play in.

In other words, if you think it's the PGA & I think it's the Masters, this big ol' world still keeps a-turnin'.

[Soapy The Clown]

Ernie was hardly gracious to Augusta.  When Augusta has treated him like royalty for years.

[topspin4hand]

I just read Ernie's quote:

"To go through all of this, and then get an invite, I wouldn't take it," he said. "They can keep it."

Wow, Ernie.  I understand the media's beaten him up with the issue for weeks now, but Ernie cracked a little bit when he gave this answer.

[brocks]

So I guess from now on, dictionaries will have Ernie's picture next to the definition of "sour grapes."

[MEfree]

Sounds like Ernie didn`t play it as well off the course as he did on, but considering he is top 35 on both the Fed Ex Cup and Race to Dubai, I think he deserves an invite...the Masters is just too exclusive...last year Web Simpson was #2 on the final money list (and had won close to $1 M prior to the Masters), but did not get invited.

This year, among others, Carl Peterson is #15 on the Fed Ex Cup standings and rookie Bud Cauley #30 but no invites for them.

[bnz506]

With Dustin now gone... I think he should get an invite.

[MEfree]

Els could have been the 3nd winner (and 2nd with prior top 5 finishes) this month not to have played in the Masters-  At least his P2 should move him back into the OWGR top 50 which gets him into the US Open if he stays up there until the cut off date.

[Wally Fairway]

Originally Posted by MEfree

Els could have been the 3nd winner (and 2nd with prior top 5 finishes) this month not to have played in the Masters-  At least his P2 should move him back into the OWGR top 50 which gets him into the US Open if he stays up there until the cut off date.

Shouldn't be a problem for Ernie - he jumped all the way up to 40th, and the US Open invites the top 60 as of 2 weeks prior.

[MEfree]

We could be asking this same question next year as Ernie`s solo 9th at the US Open was 1 shot out of being t4 which would have gotten him an invite as top 8 and ties based on the 2012 criteria. With that said, if he keeps up his current form, he will more than likely get in next year as he is currently world #39 and inside the top 30 for Fed Ex Cup (despite not having a chance to pick up points at the Masters).

The Masters likes to be exclusive and have big name winners.  Despite 19 different invitation criteria, this often results in some pretty good players being left out of the field.  I think adding the following to the existing 19 would help improve the field while achieving the Masters goal of selectivity.

20. All former major winners, OWGR #1s, PGA Tour Money list and Fed Ex Cup winners who are ranked in the OWGR Top 100 as of 1 and/or 2 weeks prior to the Masters. I think this would be a good category for the other majors as well.

Ernie was technically invited as a major winner, but this becomes an honorary, non competing invitation after 5 years.  As it stands a guy ranked #999 could get to play because of a major win 5 years prior, while a guy who won a major 6 years earlier could get blanked even if he was ranked #51.

1. Masters Tournament Champions (Lifetime)
2. US Open Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
3. British Open Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
4. PGA Champions (Honorary, non-competing after 5 years)
5. Winners of The Players Championship (Three years)
6. Current US Amateur Champion (6-A) (Honorary, non-competing after 1 year) and the runner-up (6-B) to the current US Amateur Champion
7. Current British Amateur Champion (Honorary, non-competing after 1 year)
8. Current Asian Amateur Champion
9. Current US Amateur Public Links Champion
10. Current US Mid-Amateur Champion
11. The first 16 players, including ties, in the previous year's Masters Tournament
12. The first 8 players, including ties, in the previous year's US Open Championship
13. The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's British Open Championship
14. The first 4 players, including ties, in the previous year's PGA Championship
15. The 30 leaders on the Final Official PGA Tour Money List for the previous calendar year
16. Winners of PGA Tour events that award a full-point allocation for the season-ending Tour Championship, from previous Masters to current Masters
17. Those qualifying for the previous year's season-ending Tour Championship
18. The 50 leaders on the Final Official World Golf Ranking for the previous calendar year
19. The 50 leaders on the Official World Golf Ranking published during the week prior to the current Masters Tournament

[MEfree]

I guess today`s performance means we won`t have to answer this question for a while.

When you combine the Open Championship with the US Open, Els was the only player under par for the 8 rounds.

[mvmac]

I think Ernie should be invited to the Masers for the next 5 years

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by mvmac

I think Ernie should be invited to the Masers for the next 5 years

I know you are being funny, but the Masters invites all former Major winners LIFETIME with the invitation for the other 3 majors becoming an honorary, non-competing invite after 5 years.  Don`t you think they should tweak that to make it a regular competing invitation as long as the former major winner is one of the top 100 players in the world?

I think the reason they make it so exclusive is to avoid getting a no-name Champion, but a former major winner in the top 100 will never fall into this category if they pick up their second major at Augusta (although a guy like Angel Cabrera might push the limits a bit).

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I know you are being funny, but the Masters invites all former Major winners LIFETIME with the invitation for the other 3 majors becoming an honorary, non-competing invite after 5 years.  Don`t you think they should tweak that to make it a regular competing invitation as long as the former major winner is one of the top 100 players in the world?

I think the reason they make it so exclusive is to avoid getting a no-name Champion, but a former major winner in the top 100 will never fall into this category if they pick up their second major at Augusta (although a guy like Angel Cabrera might push the limits a bit).

They don't necessarily need to do that; the could have, and should have IMO, used a special invite for Ernie.  He was a 3-time major winner who had fallen off the last few years, but he was working hard on his game and competing very well for the first half of the year.  Add to that the fact that he was inducted into the HoF last year, and it was a great unique situation for a special invite.

He's now in an extremely select club of people who have won a major after being inducted into the HoF.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I know you are being funny, but the Masters invites all former Major winners LIFETIME with the invitation for the other 3 majors becoming an honorary, non-competing invite after 5 years.  Don`t you think they should tweak that to make it a regular competing invitation as long as the former major winner is one of the top 100 players in the world?

You weren't asking me, but my answer would be "no."