About the cut ...

[BruceMGF]

The Masters Tournament has a rule that anyone within 10 shots of the lead makes the cut.

In this week's Player's Championship, as with so many other tournaments these days, the cut eliminated players closer to the lead than that.

Which brings up the question: what exactly is the cut *for*?

If the purpose is to eliminate those obviously out of contention, it's doing that and then some - it's probably eliminating players who could still win.

Is the purpose logistics?  Too many players?  But they're all there Thursday and Friday.

For the convenience of TV?  There's TV Thursday and Friday.  Beside, the idea long predates television.

Or is it there because "that's the rule, and we've always done it that way.  Too bad if you could still win", when the *original* justification was probably to eliminate those clearly out of contention.

Should the cut be re-thought?  Modified (a la the Masters)?  What happens if, some weekend, players six or seven shots out of the lead are cut?  Will we say "wait a minute, does this rule make any sense?"

Does it?

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by BruceMGF

The Masters Tournament has a rule that anyone within 10 shots of the lead makes the cut.

In this week's Player's Championship, as with so many other tournaments these days, the cut eliminated players closer to the lead than that.

Which brings up the question: what exactly is the cut *for*?

If the purpose is to eliminate those obviously out of contention, it's doing that and then some - it's probably eliminating players who could still win.

Is the purpose logistics?  Too many players?  But they're all there Thursday and Friday.

For the convenience of TV?  There's TV Thursday and Friday.  Beside, the idea long predates television.

Or is it there because "that's the rule, and we've always done it that way.  Too bad if you could still win", when the *original* justification was probably to eliminate those clearly out of contention.

Probably most of the above. Specifically being able to get everyone around the course - all going off the first tee - in time. Bear in mind that the Masters starts with a smaller field - 90 or so as opposed to 150 or so - so they can go to within 10 of the lead & are still reducing the field significantly. If they did that at a regular event, there still may be 100+ players in the field after the cut.

Your point that the cut may eliminate someone closer that 10 shots has merit, but bear in mind it's not so much 'how far' from the lead someone is, it's 'how many players' from the lead they are. In other words, if you're nine back in 45th place versus nine back in 97th place, that greatly influences your chance of winning. In the first instance it's possible to win. In latter, practically nonexistent.

[Zwick]

I think it's just like it is. You can compare it to skiing, in the slalom and giant slalom only the 30 best skiers from the 1st run can compete in the 2nd run. It happens quite often, that a skier ranked 28th or something like that goes on to win it. Everyone further back than 30th can't compete, ltough they still might have an outside chance.

But I think thats a good thing, a little pressure and drama on the first two days. Another reason these days is television, after the cut, they can almost show everyone.

[brocks]

The PGA changed the cut rule just a few years ago because they thought they had too many players on Sunday. I don't think they are looking for ways to increase the number.