When Should Past Masters Champions Stop Playing?

[labs22]

When ever they want!!! They are a master champion and it's traditions like that that make the tournament the class act that it is

[Mac62]

I voted #1.  They're not taking spots away from anybody else, so that's a moot point.  If they're playing badly, they won't make the cut and won't influence weekend play.  If they're playing well enough to make the cut, they have the right to go out there and contend.  If they're playing too slowly, put them on the clock.

[turtleback]

If former winner chooses not to play, can he still go to the free dinner on Wednesday night?  That would clinch it for me.

I am pretty sure that the attraction of the Champions Dinner on Wednesday night is not the fact that it is free.

[joekelly]

Well, Turtleback, can you answer my question, or not?  Don't worry about if you can't; it's a small thing.

And let me guess that the evening's host, the current jacket holder, is buying the meal of his choice for all the diners.  One alternative is that the ANGC buys the dinner.  That seems unlikely.  Equally unlikely is that each diner, what 50 Master Champs, pays for his own plate of food.  I can just see all those old guys searching thru their wallets looking for at least 2 BenFranklins and moaning about the lack of vegetables on the menu.

[Rick Martin]

I am pretty sure that the attraction of the Champions Dinner on Wednesday night is not the fact that it is free.

I think they have the Champions Dinner on Tuesday night.

[JKolya]

When they want - they earned it, and the traditions make the Masters. Take away the traditions and while the Masters would still be a major, it would be a shadow of what it is today. I also disagree with ideas such as 'five missed cuts and over fifty' and they should call it. What happens then with the 25 year old with five appearances and no cuts made? Should they not be welcomed back? I know most would say they are young and could compete in any given year, but my point is such a rule (or unwritten rule) equates to a grey line.

[iacas]

If former winner chooses not to play, can he still go to the free dinner on Wednesday night?  That would clinch it for me.

As noted, it's Tuesday, and of course they can still go. Look at the current picture - many of them aren't playing.

[turtleback]

I think they have the Champions Dinner on Tuesday night.

Thanks, you're right.

I like the point that they have been making a lot this year - having the former champions playing is connecting the generations in golf in a  way no other significant event does.

[Chilli Dipper]

The Open Championship previous winners until age 60 are exempt?  I wonder if The Master's will do that at some point.

The R&A; almost immediately regretted that decision after 53-year-old Greg Norman and 59-year-old Tom Watson both nearly won the tournament in consecutive years, to the point that they made up a convoluted exemption for "past champions who have finished in the top-ten in the last ten years" just so they can keep inviting them. Senior golfers' window of competitiveness is much broader than it was a generation ago; Ben Crenshaw is primarily an architect who doesn't play competitive golf now, so he's more of an exception than the rule.

[weekend hacker1]

When they want - they earned it, and the traditions make the Masters. Take away the traditions and while the Masters would still be a major, it would be a shadow of what it is today. I also disagree with ideas such as 'five missed cuts and over fifty' and they should call it. What happens then with the 25 year old with five appearances and no cuts made? Should they not be welcomed back? I know most would say they are young and could compete in any given year, but my point is such a rule (or unwritten rule) equates to a grey line.

The tradition of the Masters is entirely invented. It's the youngest major, so to make up for it they invent a load of hokey nonsense!

[Rick Martin]

Thanks, you're right.

I like the point that they have been making a lot this year - having the former champions playing is connecting the generations in golf in a  way no other significant event does.

There are other ways to connect - let them go out with players on practice rounds. Play the par 3s. Walk the range and talk to the players.   I think a round of golf in competition, most players stick to themselves and their caddies.  My experience watching Doug Ford struggle up the fairway in his final rounds and shooting mid-high 80s did it for me.  I will remember him as an old golfer who called it quits too late.  I saw Arnie playing some really bad golf the same way at Augusta National- hitting balls into bushes, lost ball, replaying shot. Not exactly how I want to remember his legacy.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKolya

When they want - they earned it, and the traditions make the Masters. Take away the traditions and while the Masters would still be a major, it would be a shadow of what it is today. I also disagree with ideas such as 'five missed cuts and over fifty' and they should call it. What happens then with the 25 year old with five appearances and no cuts made? Should they not be welcomed back? I know most would say they are young and could compete in any given year, but my point is such a rule (or unwritten rule) equates to a grey line.

The tradition of the Masters is entirely invented. It's the youngest major, so to make up for it they invent a load of hokey nonsense!

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Thanks, you're right.

I like the point that they have been making a lot this year - having the former champions playing is connecting the generations in golf in a  way no other significant event does.

There are other ways to connect - let them go out with players on practice rounds. Play the par 3s. Walk the range and talk to the players.   I think a round of golf in competition, most players stick to themselves and their caddies.  My experience watching Doug Ford struggle up the fairway in his final rounds and shooting mid-high 80s did it for me.  I will remember him as an old golfer who called it quits too late.  I saw Arnie playing some really bad golf the same way at Augusta National- hitting balls into bushes, lost ball, replaying shot. Not exactly how I want to remember his legacy.

But should all majors be exactly the same?  I think the best part about the majors for me is they are all different.  Each one has its own challenges.  The Masters is more of a living history than the other majors.  I know it was tough seeing Ben Crenshaw struggle, but the "patrons" really appreciate it and so apparently does the viewing audience if our poll indicates as much.

[ScouseJohnny]

Par 3 contest does well for some of these old timers to be seen and let the golf fans relish the good old days......but a major needs to be left to the top players of the world.

All of whom are already there.

There are 19 past winners in this year's field. Seven of them are players who would automatically fall into your "top players of the world" category anyway. Of the other twelve, a few are still playing excellent golf on the Champions' Tour and, well, you never know...I wouldn't have been surprised at all to see the likes of Couples or Langer put together a decent couple of rounds and make the cut.

Which leaves you with a very small handful of, with all due respect, golfers who are probably long past it when it comes to competing in Majors: Woosnam, Lyle, Crenshaw etc. Even if you made those guys ineligible, chances are their replacements, (however you broadened the other categories of eligibility to recruit players), would not be the "top players of the world" you are demanding, in the most literal sense.

The quality of the competition is not diminished by a few old fogeys going out to play on Thursday and Friday. This tournament was always going to be won by one of a small, select group of golfers - and a quick glance at the leaderboard proves that will likely be the case (the only name that surprises me there slightly is Charley Hoffman, and I don't think he's going to win it). The same will be true for the other three majors this year.

[turtleback]

There are other ways to connect - let them go out with players on practice rounds. Play the par 3s. Walk the range and talk to the players.   I think a round of golf in competition, most players stick to themselves and their caddies.  My experience watching Doug Ford struggle up the fairway in his final rounds and shooting mid-high 80s did it for me.  I will remember him as an old golfer who called it quits too late.  I saw Arnie playing some really bad golf the same way at Augusta National- hitting balls into bushes, lost ball, replaying shot. Not exactly how I want to remember his legacy.

Oh please, I bet you didn't even see 3 shots by Doug Ford that year.  So I call BS to your talk about having to watch him struggle.

They don't show the old guys for more than maybe a shot or two.  So it actually makes no difference to the viewing experience.  All you really experience of those guys is seeing their names and scores on paper or a screen.  It has nothing to do with having to watch them play badly.

[JKolya]

The tradition of the Masters is entirely invented. It's the youngest major, so to make up for it they invent a load of hokey nonsense!

Maybe, but that does not change anything. It may be the youngest major, but the traditions exist and the players themselves value the tournament and the traditions. There is a reason why for many it is the best tournament of the year.There is a reason the players value it so high, and they speak of the traditions. There is a reason Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, and many others return every year. Like it or not the traditions exist.

[weekend hacker1]

Maybe, but that does not change anything. It may be the youngest major, but the traditions exist and the players themselves value the tournament and the traditions. There is a reason why for many it is the best tournament of the year.There is a reason the players value it so high, and they speak of the traditions. There is a reason Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, and many others return every year. Like it or not the traditions exist.

That's a fair point, and even if it is invented it was invented a long time ago. Speaking personally, and as a non-American, I much prefer the US Open, but it's all a matter of opinion. Still an amazing tournament which I am watching avidly, it's just that I'd rather win your Open than the Masters. And yes, I know that is a comment that is otiose at best, beyond ridiculous at worst!

[JKolya]

That's a fair point, and even if it is invented it was invented a long time ago. Speaking personally, and as a non-American, I much prefer the US Open, but it's all a matter of opinion. Still an amazing tournament which I am watching avidly, it's just that I'd rather win your Open than the Masters. And yes, I know that is a comment that is otiose at best, beyond ridiculous at worst!

Definitely a matter of opinion and preference. In terms of competition, and therefore prestige or bragging rights, you cannot beat the US Open. Its a larger field, and a more competitive one. So in terms of competition winning the US Open is a greater achievement than the Masters. I would prefer the Masters just for the idea of coming back and being a part of it for a lifetime, whether that is playing or simply being a part of the champions dinner.

[weekend hacker1]

Definitely a matter of opinion and preference. In terms of competition, and therefore prestige or bragging rights, you cannot beat the US Open. Its a larger field, and a more competitive one. So in terms of competition winning the US Open is a greater achievement than the Masters. I would prefer the Masters just for the idea of coming back and being a part of it for a lifetime, whether that is playing or simply being a part of the champions dinner.

We can but dream! I'd reluctantly settle for a PGA...