Regarding Masters Snubbing Active Major Winners (and Other Players)

[club ho]

Two years ago. Use Google or something.

I disagree. Duval hasn't deserved to play. Nor has Daly (no "e").

The field would be watered down considerably if all past winners were allowed to play.    I think the current system is best.

Maybe I am not making myself clear. I am saying that a major winner who still has an active PGA or European card should automatically qualify to play in any majors including the Masters. This would exclude DALY  and probably Duval. Not sure what there card status is.

[k-troop]

Maybe I am not making myself clear. I am saying that a major winner who still has an active PGA or European card should automatically qualify to play in any majors including the Masters. This would exclude DALY  and probably Duval. Not sure what there card status is.

So how about this: who do YOU think is excluded this year but deserving?

[iacas]

Maybe I am not making myself clear. I am saying that a major winner who still has an active PGA or European card should automatically qualify to play in any majors including the Masters. This would exclude DALY  and probably Duval. Not sure what there card status is.

Duval and Daly had cards in good standing well after they no longer qualified for some majors. You're being clear. Others are simply disagreeing with you.

[Spitfisher]

I am reading this whole thread w/quite a bit of amusement...waiting to read who is left off this year.

The masters is laced with tradition and is not likely to change anything to accommodate a player that simply deserves to play based on a major win. The masters has always been about golf on their course under their control(s). Their are numerous ways of qualifying for a pro and only recently have loosened up the criteria to allow some younger talent from the international arena.

[turtleback]

At most I would support a change in the Masters' qualifying criteria to add a one-time only special exemption for any major winner who does not otherwise qualify.  But since I am not a member of ANGC I doubt that the Masters guys care what I think.

[acerimusdux]

The field would be watered down considerably if all past winners were allowed to play.    I think the current system is best.

Agree.  If anything, I think too much is sometimes made of winning a major. There have been guys who have won one major, with no other tour wins, like Shaun Micheel, Paul Lawrie or Luis Oosthuizen. And some good players out there who have yet to win a major, like Henrik Stenson. I'd rather see the best golfers, than guys who once just happened to have a good week at the right time.

I don't mind so much them inviting past Masters winners, as it's basically a way of promoting and  honoring the history of their own event. And part of the prize, really.  But even that means there will be a couple of guys like Ian Woosman who probably don't really belong in this field at this point.

[club ho]

So how about this: who do YOU think is excluded this year but deserving?

I would definitely include Paddy Harrington. A three time major winner who has a knack for finding lightning in a bottle at major events while not otherwise playing particularly in other events. For starters. I agree with a previous poster who suggested a onetime exemption for a major winner. I would go further and allow the exemption to increase to the number of majors that player has achieved but end the exemptions at 50 years of age.

[Rick Martin]

Maybe include major winners who stay within the top 100 on the current year's money list (or previous year's money list) - future Hall of Fame golfers who are still very competitive (like Els in 2012 and Harrington) ought to have an "in" - but as the previous poster said, Micheel, Daly, a few others would be wasted invites.

[club ho]

Agree.  If anything, I think too much is sometimes made of winning a major. There have been guys who have won one major, with no other tour wins, like Shaun Micheel, Paul Lawrie or Luis Oosthuizen. And some good players out there who have yet to win a major, like Henrik Stenson. I'd rather see the best golfers, than guys who once just happened to have a good week at the right time.

I don't mind so much them inviting past Masters winners, as it's basically a way of promoting and  honoring the history of their own event. And part of the prize, really.  But even that means there will be a couple of guys like Ian Woosman who probably don't really belong in this field at this point.

How about when we had to watch Arnie,Jack  and Gary lumber around the course not that long ago.

But if you put an age limit on exemptions like 50 or maybe 45 and thinking about it only allow a multiple major winners to be allowed exemption. I think it would not water down the field in anyway. I believe a multiple major winner still in his prime has earned that privilege.

[k-troop]

I would definitely include Paddy Harrington. A three time major winner who has a knack for finding lightning in a bottle at major events while not otherwise playing particularly in other events. For starters. I agree with a previous poster who suggested a onetime exemption for a major winner. I would go further and allow the exemption to increase to the number of majors that player has achieved but end the exemptions at 50 years of age.

Ok, but there are a few dozen others who would get in based on your exemption who don't have a "knack for finding lightning in a bottle."  Do you think it's really worth it to create an eligibility change that adds two-dozen hacks to the field each year so that one "potential" contender doesn't get left out?  I'll even acknowledge that leaving Ernie out last year was a huge mistake, but I don't think there are enough Ernies each year to warrant that kind of change.

[boogielicious]

How about when we had to watch Arnie,Jack  and Gary lumber around the course not that long ago.

But if you put an age limit on exemptions like 50 or maybe 45 and thinking about it only allow a multiple major winners to be allowed exemption. I think it would not water down the field in anyway. I believe a multiple major winner still in his prime has earned that privilege.

They've all won the Masters.  Previous Masters winner have a lifetime exemption.  I like Padraic, but he is not qualifying this year.  He has a lifetime exemption for the Open Championship.

[club ho]

A) Ernie is playing. He just won the British Open.

B) He wasn't very competitive a few years ago when he didn't get invited. He wasn't top 50 in the world and he qualified under none of the other criteria.

C) If you took every player that won a major in the last 30 years you could easily have 90+ players still playing. That's not cool.

Yes, who knows what the OP was saying.

Iacas:

1) You have selectively misinterpreted my posts by leaving out the crucial criteria of putting an age limit of 50 years old and still have an active tour card. That would prevent the scenario that you presented of 90+ major winners playing.

2) My point was that Ernie was excluded last year in the same way Paddy is this year. The fact that Ernie went on to win the British Open reinforces the reason that these players deserve an exemption.

3) After thinking about it I do agree that this exemption should only exist for multiple major winners. That would definitely minimize the number of players playing under this exemption rule.

BTW You seem to have an attitude against me. That's not cool.  I noticed you are working on 30K plus posts. I'd suggest you step outside and hit a few golf balls.

[club ho]

Ok, but there are a few dozen others who would get in based on your exemption who don't have a "knack for finding lightning in a bottle."  Do you think it's really worth it to create an eligibility change that adds two-dozen hacks to the field each year so that one "potential" contender doesn't get left out?  I'll even acknowledge that leaving Ernie out last year was a huge mistake, but I don't think there are enough Ernies each year to warrant that kind of change.

I can not think of any golfers that have won 2 or more majors and is under the age of 50 that has a current PGA tour card that I would consider a hack. Please let me know who they would be.

[club ho]

They've all won the Masters.  Previous Masters winner have a lifetime exemption.  I like Padraic, but he is not qualifying this year.  He has a lifetime exemption for the Open Championship.

I might be wrong but i thought that only the Masters provide lifetime exemptions.

[k-troop]

I can not think of any golfers that have won 2 or more majors and is under the age of 50 that has a current PGA tour card that I would consider a hack. Please let me know who they would be.

Okay, pretend I didn't say the word hack--it's not relevant to the point.  Name a golfer besides Paddy or Ernie who you believe has been erroneously excluded.  Seeing the names of these potential champions will illuminate the logic of your criteria change.  You still haven't named anyone (besides Paddy) who you think is left out.  I'm talking an actual live, breathing person--not a category or set of criteria.

And please stick to one set of criteria.  It's a little unfair for you to change your criteria mid-argument and then turn those new criteria against people who are responding to your initial criteria.

[MS256]

What odds would Vegas put on a guy like Harrington at the present time if he was in the tournament? That's "strengthening the field? I don't see it.

It's almost as bad as the amusing argument that comes up every year in basketball about some team that just missed out on getting a 16 seed. They aren't winning the tournament anyway and if they were a threat to win they would have gotten in and had a higher seed.

[boogielicious]

Iacas:

1) You have selectively misinterpreted my posts by leaving out the crucial criteria of putting an age limit of 50 years old and still have an active tour card. That would prevent the scenario that you presented of 90+ major winners playing.

2) My point was that Ernie was excluded last year in the same way Paddy is this year. The fact that Ernie went on to win the British Open reinforces the reason that these players deserve an exemption.

3) After thinking about it I do agree that this exemption should only exist for multiple major winners. That would definitely minimize the number of players playing under this exemption rule.

BTW You seem to have an attitude against me. That's not cool.  I noticed you are working on 30K plus posts. I'd suggest you step outside and hit a few golf balls.

I don't think Erik has an attitude against you.  He just doesn't agree with you.  The Masters has very specific criteria for entry.  I like Ernie and Paddy, but Ernie was playing poorly the year he missed it and Paddy is doing the same this year.  I think for Ernie, it was a wake up call to play better and he has.  Paddy needs to do the  same.

[iacas]

1) You have selectively misinterpreted my posts by leaving out the crucial criteria of putting an age limit of 50 years old and still have an active tour card. That would prevent the scenario that you presented of 90+ major winners playing.

If you won at 20, you have 30 years of eligibility. Four majors a year, 120 possible contestants. So 90+ players could be in the field, given that some players win multiple majors, or win majors earlier.

Realistic? No. Let's say the average age to win a major is 32. That's 18 years, and so that's still potentially 72 players, which ignores the top 50 on the PGA Tour, winners of PGA Tour events from the previous year, invitations to the U.S. Am, British Am, etc. winners and runners up, etc. The field would grow.

Not by 72 or even 90, but it would grow, and it would grow with dead weight. I didn't selectively misinterpret anything - I simply presented a sort of worst case scenario, which is probably more realistic than your best case scenario of "lightning in a bottle."

And why 50? Tom Watson nearly won a major at 59. :-P

2) My point was that Ernie was excluded last year in the same way Paddy is this year. The fact that Ernie went on to win the British Open reinforces the reason that these players deserve an exemption.

Ernie Els was not excluded from playing in the Masters last year.

3) After thinking about it I do agree that this exemption should only exist for multiple major winners. That would definitely minimize the number of players playing under this exemption rule.

It's good to change your mind if arguments are presented. Good for you. But I still disagree. Padraig doesn't deserve to be there this year. I don't care if he won six majors (none The Masters) six years ago. He's not good enough last year or this year to have qualified.

BTW You seem to have an attitude against me. That's not cool.  I noticed you are working on 30K plus posts. I'd suggest you step outside and hit a few golf balls.

I don't. I simply have an opinion that's different than yours.

And this is my site, so as member #1, I've had a bit more time to amass posts. BTW, as a newer member, please read this: . Please multi-quote. Thank you.

I can not think of any golfers that have won 2 or more majors and is under the age of 50 that has a current PGA tour card that I would consider a hack. Please let me know who they would be.

I think you know what he meant by that.

Name a golfer besides Paddy or Ernie who you believe has been erroneously excluded. Seeing the names of these potential champions will illuminate the logic of your criteria change. You still haven't named anyone (besides Paddy) who you think is left out. I'm talking an actual live, breathing person--not a category or set of criteria.

And please stick to one set of criteria.  It's a little unfair for you to change your criteria mid-argument and then turn those new criteria against people who are responding to your initial criteria.

I second that request.