Regarding Masters Snubbing Active Major Winners (and Other Players)

[jamo]

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.

This. @club ho , if you want to make your point, put together a list of active major winner under 50 who aren't otherwise in The Masters this year.

[iacas]

This. @club ho, if you want to make your point, put together a list of active major winner under 50 who aren't otherwise in The Masters this year.

Yes please, because otherwise, it's just a re-tread of the Ernie Els thread from 2012 (not 2013).

[Nemicu]

Chad Cambell

Michael Cambell

Todd Hamlton

Ben Curtis

Padraig Harrington

Tiger Woods (lol)

Rich Beem

Shaun Micheel

Retief Goosen

Justin Leonard

Paul Lawrie

David Duval

Lee Janzen

Geoff Ogilvy

John Daly

David Toms

Davis Love III

Thats about the same number of players who actually qualify who have no hope of winning anyway.

[jamo]

Chad Cambell Michael Cambell Todd Hamlton Ben Curtis Padraig Harrington Tiger Woods (lol) Rich Beem Shaun Micheel Retief Goosen Justin Leonard Paul Lawrie David Duval Lee Janzen Geoff Ogilvy John Daly David Toms Davis Love III Thats about the same number of players who actually qualify who have no hope of winning anyway.

But how many of these are active players with status on the PGA Tour or Euro Tour?

[Nemicu]

But how many of these are active players with status on the PGA Tour or Euro Tour?

All of them? Each player in one form or another has exemption status to play at certain events.

[jamo]

All of them? Each player in one form or another has exemption status to play at certain events.

List of players with PGA Tour status: http://www.pgatour.com/news/2013/player_exemptions.html Lawrie, Duval, Janzen, Michael Campbell, and Micheel aren't on that list. Players with European Tour status: http://www.europeantour.com/europeantour/players/examptioncat/ Duval, Janzen, and Micheel aren't on that list either, so they're definitely gone. Also, Chad Campbell hasn't won a major. And I deleted Tiger. So we're at the following guys who would get exemptions: Michael Campbell Todd Hamlton Ben Curtis Padraig Harrington Rich Beem Retief Goosen Justin Leonard Paul Lawrie Geoff Ogilvy John Daly David Toms Davis Love III Seems like too many to me.

[tmac20]

If it ain't broke don't fix it. The Master's consistently gets the best leaderboard on Sunday with the most dramatic finishes of any major. Why change anything about it?

[Nemicu]

If it ain't broke don't fix it. The Master's consistently gets the best leaderboard on Sunday with the most dramatic finishes of any major. Why change anything about it?

This is true. It's ANGC's tournament and they can do what they damn well like with it. In response to the OP, I don't think the Masters snub anyone - they simply lay down a criteria for qualification which seems the least tenuous of any of the others. But I also agree that the field could have a bit more depth - let the old winners play in the par 3 competition by all means, but I fail to see how letting the likes of Larry Mize contend in the tournament proper adds any weight to a limited field in the first place. That leaves about 60? Maybe 40 if we're honest? It's all about protecting the course if you ask me - but why change that either?

[ztexz]

If it ain't broke don't fix it. The Master's consistently gets the best leaderboard on Sunday with the most dramatic finishes of any major. Why change anything about it?

I mostly agree.  The one change I would like to see to the Masters field is an end to the lifetime exemption.  It's already a smaller field, and having guys like Craig Staddler or Ben Crenshaw  tie up a spot doesn't do anything for the game, the tournament, or deserving pros (or amateurs) who have an actual shot at making the cut.

Let them come participate in the festivities, play the Par 3 tournament with their grandkids, and basically spend the week fawning over them and kissing their butts.  Or, if you insist on inviting them, I'd like to see them have the grace to politely decline

[jamo]

Or, if you insist on inviting them, I'd like to see them have the grace to politely decline

Many do.

[iacas]

I mostly agree.  The one change I would like to see to the Masters field is an end to the lifetime exemption.  It's already a smaller field, and having guys like Craig Staddler or Ben Crenshaw  tie up a spot doesn't do anything for the game, the tournament, or deserving pros (or amateurs) who have an actual shot at making the cut.

They aren't "tying up a spot." Nobody extra would get in if Sandy Lyle opted not to play this year.

The ones that can't get around in fewer than 83 shots are encouraged to convert to honorary status. Like Gary Player should have done years ago, but no, he was dead set on breaking Arnie's record… in typical Gary Player fashion. :P

[k-troop]

http://www.golf.com/special-features/crenshaw-wins-1995-masters

Quote:

Originally Posted by ztexz

I mostly agree.  The one change I would like to see to the Masters field is an end to the lifetime exemption.  It's already a smaller field, and having guys like Craig Staddler or Ben Crenshaw  tie up a spot doesn't do anything for the game, the tournament , or deserving pros (or amateurs) who have an actual shot at making the cut.

Let them come participate in the festivities, play the Par 3 tournament with their grandkids, and basically spend the week fawning over them and kissing their butts.  Or, if you insist on inviting them, I'd like to see them have the grace to politely decline

I don't agree with the bolded part.  Part of what sets the Masters apart from the other majors is the unique traditions of the tournament and ANGC.  Part of that is the central role that past champions play.  Ben Crenshaw will get substantial coverage on Thursday and Friday, there will be speculation whether this will be his "last Masters," and we'll hear all about how he won on the week when Penick died.  That story and the accompanying images are part of the lore of the tournament, and we wouldn't see or remember it if Crenshaw wasn't playing.

You might (rightfully) feel that distracts from the coverage of competitive golf.  To that I'll say this:  Crenshaw won't be around for the weekend (though wouldn't it be something if he was?) when the real competition happens.  Further, Augusta has never really cared much about saturation coverage of the tournament.  It wasn't long ago that they only broadcast the weekend, and only the second nine at that.

I will agree that the old guys who lack the physical capacity to break 80 should (and are strongly encouraged to) decline.

Many do.

Shouldn't this be titled "list of completely washed up players with absolutely no chance of ever winning a major again"?  (Let the Tiger-love flame war begin... )

[Nemicu]

Hmm, yes.

The Masters has always been a show littered with phoney traditionalism and contrived and "made up" heritage. Rather lacking in history when compared to the other majors (it's the youngest), they soon set about creating a bit of exclusivity by making limited fields appear to be the ultimate title to have. This is reflected by their historic TV coverage where the viewing was limited to maintain the aura of exclusivity. Butler cabins, green jackets, caddies in white, green paint, blue dye in water, frozen flowers....it all adds up to a major trying to make up for lost time by creating their own tradition.

Personally, I like the tourney - but the schmaltz that goes with it...not so much. The handover of the green jacket at the end is probably the pinnacle of this faux-heritage. "Why Jim - I can hear them coming now..." Give us a break.

[iacas]

The Masters has always been a show littered with phoney traditionalism and contrived and "made up" heritage.

Geez. It's still practically 80 years old, man. Most people still don't even LIVE that long. I think a lifetime is long enough to call it true "history." The guy that prompted the green jackets? Dead. The guy who suggested the first Champions Dinner? Dead. And not recently for either of them.

[k-troop]

Hmm, yes.

The Masters has always been a show littered with phoney traditionalism and contrived and "made up" heritage. Rather lacking in history when compared to the other majors (it's the youngest), they soon set about creating a bit of exclusivity by making limited fields appear to be the ultimate title to have. This is reflected by their historic TV coverage where the viewing was limited to maintain the aura of exclusivity. Butler cabins, green jackets, caddies in white, green paint, blue dye in water, frozen flowers....it all adds up to a major trying to make up for lost time by creating their own tradition.

Personally, I like the tourney - but the schmaltz that goes with it...not so much. The handover of the green jacket at the end is probably the pinnacle of this faux-heritage. "Why Jim - I can hear them coming now..." Give us a break.

Now you just sound like a cantankerous Brit who scoffs at any tournament other than the British Open (yeah, I know the real name) claiming to have tradition.  Think about what the Open Championship field would look like if the phony traditionalist Americans hadn't given it CPR in the 60s and 70s.  It would be Rory, Graeme, and a bunch of dudes who couldn't carry Crenshaw's putter.

Hey, but we're all entitled to our opinions.

[Nemicu]

Geez. It's still practically 80 years old, man. Most people still don't even LIVE that long. I think a lifetime is long enough to call it true "history." The guy that prompted the green jackets? Dead. The guy who suggested the first Champions Dinner? Dead. And not recently for either of them.

A superlative that sadly can't be applied to Jim Nantz though.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

Winning a tournament held 3 months later has nothing to do with whether a player deserves an invitation to the Masters.  The Masters is a privately run competition - qualification is by the criteria set by the tournament committee.  They have every right to set whatever criteria they want.  They choose not to include past winners of  other majors beyond 5 years.  They invite more players who have demonstrated the ability to play well or win more recently.  I don't see any problem with that at all.  I think it would be quite wrong to qualify a player who is 95th on the money list and has only won a single tournament in his life, even though that tournament accidentally happened to be the 2005 PGA Championship (just an example - don't really know who that might have been and I'm not bothering to look it up).  That would be unfair to the guys who would then be cut from the lower end of the world ranking, but who are actually playing far better than that so-called major champion.

No matter how it's set up, someone is going to be left out.  I'd rather see the guys in there who are playing the best right now.  Ernie will be playing this year because he still has 4 years of eligibility from his Open win in 2012.  That is how it should be.

By the way, I'll wager that Ernie doesn't finish in the top 20.  I like him, but he's just not really up to competing with the young guns - last year he he made one top 10 and missed the cut in 25% of the events he entered on Tour.  If he does better than that it's just because he does seem to be more inspired in bigger tournaments.

[Shindig]

The ones that can't get around in fewer than 83 shots are encouraged to convert to honorary status. Like Gary Player should have done years ago, but no, he was dead set on breaking Arnie's record… in typical Gary Player fashion. :P

In typical Gary Player fashion, he also pointed out that, when he broke the record, he was breaking [i]his and Arnie's[/i] record. [quote name="Fourputt" url="/t/73704/regarding-masters-snubbing-active-major-winners/36#post_972724"] even though that tournament accidentally happened to be the 2005 PGA Championship (just an example - don't really know who that might have been and I'm not bothering to look it up).  That would be unfair to [/quote] You might be pleased to know that the guy who won the 2005 PGA Championship is invited to compete in the 2014 Masters, and I think he's expected to play, too. However, his invite criteria for this year's event wasn't because of his status as the 2005 PGA Champion. [quote name="k-troop" url="/t/73704/regarding-masters-snubbing-active-major-winners/36#post_972646"] the British Open (yeah, I know the real name) claiming to have tradition.  Think about what the Open Championship field [/quote] I'm pretty sure you know which major tournament actually has the phrase "Open Championship" on its trophy...