When Should Past Masters Champions Stop Playing?

[boogielicious]

Part of the allure of the Masters is how it honors past champions.  But there is also some grumbling about players well past their prime being in the tournament. This is Ben Crenshaw's last masters.  Fuzzy called it quits last year.

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golf-central-blog/crenshaw-prepping-emotional-masters-farewell/?cid=golfchannel_majorshomepage_masters_tournament_latestnews_position_12_link_1

Billy Casper once received a letter asking that he not play.

http://www.golfdigest.com/blogs/the-loop/2015/04/this-is-the-letter-augusta-nat.html

Quote:

Casper hadn't made a cut at the Masters in 15 years when he received the letter in 2001, which was part of an ill-fated effort by then-chairman Hootie Johnson to phase out some of the less-competitive players.

"To be told, in effect, that you're not welcome, at least as you have always been welcome in the past, is a heartbreaking thing to read," Casper, who passed away in February, said. "It's probably the most devastating thing that's ever happened to me in golf."

What do the fine folks at The Sand Trap think?  Please vote an comment.

[Ernest Jones]

I voted the first option. I like the tradition and think it's one of the things that truly sets the Masters apart. Also, as a TV viewer with DVR capability it really has no downside for me. But put those ****ers on the clock if they can't keep up.

[Crim]

i voted when they want to. If they want to get to the point where they look ridiculous, I say let them.

[iacas]

I would vote "when they want to" but the tournament doesn't exist in a vacuum where their actions don't affect others. It can be annoying to have to play with some guy shooting 82 or 84 or whatever, and the older players are often a little slower, too. That can affect competitive players.

So I think that if they fail to make the cut for a few years, and it's obvious, they should stop playing. Do this via an unwritten rule: if you fail to make the cut for five straight years and you're over 50, hang 'em up. "Do the right thing."

So I chose the second option.

[Zeph]

When they can't compete. I think the rest of the field is better off without and it is a very prestigous tournament with lots of pressure.

[Patch]

When they are too old to compete any longer would be my best guess. Sure, the older guys should be at the Masters, since they are part of it's history. There is a lot going on during Masters week, and they could mix, and mingle quite well in a non tournament atmosphere.

If you know you can't compete, in any pro tournament, you shouldn't take the spot of one who can. It matters little how old, or young the player is.

[tristanhilton85]

I chose the first option. I agree that there are times when guys probably shouldn't play, but they've earned the right.

[Fourputt]

I chose the first option. I agree that there are times when guys probably shouldn't play, but they've earned the right.

I agree.  If there is a problem then pair them up with each other Instead of mixing them through the field.  Some of the amateurs can't break 80 at Augusta either, but I don't hear anyone griping about that.

[Ferguson]

Brandel - nice touch. A panel or committee is always best. Like a firing squad, no one really knows which rifle had the live ammo.

[Deryck Griffith]

I chose the first option.

It adds to the allure of the tournament which makes this tournament what it is.  Would it be "ideal" for the former winners to sign off earlier, maybe BUT I can envision when I have a child one day, taking them to the Masters and saying, "that's Tiger woods maybe the best ever, I remember when he...." or "that's Phil Mickelson, one of the best ever," etc. Those opportunities are amazing and only can happen at the Masters.

With how the tradition is now, the window for that opportunity is available to be experienced for a decent duration of time due to most of the former winners playing well past their prime.  If former winners signed off prematurely, then that window would be much smaller than it is now.

[Scotsclaff]

I voted for Brandel because I like him.

Joking aside,I love the traditions of the Masters and the old guys should be allowed to continue as long as they want,their participation has never affected the excitement of The Masters.

[isukgolf]

So many things in golf are based on tradition ... why break this one? Plus isn't the Masters more about tradition? I do think think they should pair them up and put them towards the end of the groupings as to have less impact on the field.

[Golfingdad]

I would vote "when they want to" but the tournament doesn't exist in a vacuum where their actions don't affect others. It can be annoying to have to play with some guy shooting 82 or 84 or whatever, and the older players are often a little slower, too. That can affect competitive players.

So I think that if they fail to make the cut for a few years, and it's obvious, they should stop playing. Do this via an unwritten rule: if you fail to make the cut for five straight years and you're over 50, hang 'em up. "Do the right thing."

So I chose the second option.

As the groupings were scrolling across the screen last night and I saw that Sueng Yul Noh was paired with Sandy Lyle, my first thought was "I hope the old guy doesn't mess with his rhythm."

So, basically, I agree with this idea.  Except perhaps a few more than 5 years, or make it 55 or 60.  Because, otherwise, Bernhard Langer would have been "fired" from the Masters after 2010 (his 5th straight missed cut and the year he turned 53) and we wouldn't have been able to enjoy his resurgence that lead to a T25 finish 2 years ago and a T8 finish (and in the hunt on the final day) last year.

[jbishop15]

I voted only when they want to. I think it's a nice gesture to allow them to continue playing.

[Kieran123]

If Arnold Palmer said he wanted to play the masters - who the *** is gonna say no?

I voted 1. Whenever they feel like it's their time.

[ScouseJohnny]

It can be annoying to have to play with some guy shooting 82 or 84 or whatever, and the older players are often a little slower, too. That can affect competitive players.

Diddums.

It's part of the nature of the game that you can turn up to play and be paired with whomever, whether in competitive play or not. And it's part of the nature of this particular invitational tournament that past champions, long since past their golfing prime, may be in the field. I don't think that whoever is paired with Sandy Lyle or whomever should feel that he has been unjustly put at a disadvantage. Mr. Lyle secured his right to play in the 2015 Masters in 1988.

[Hardballs]

I thought winners were automatically qualified for the masters for the following 5 years? After that, if ya don't qualify, your outta there! (That's what I think it should be anyway)

[rkim291968]

I thought winners were automatically qualified for the masters for the following 5 years?

After that, if ya don't qualify, your outta there!

(That's what I think it should be anyway)

+1.

Didn't vote b/c the above option wasn't there.