Masters Field Size

[jsgolfer]

A normal PGA tour field is 150, The Master's is typically under 100.  Would increasing the field be good for the game, or is the limited field a better watch and more drama?

I voted they should increase the field a little, not to 150 but maybe they should add an additional number of pro's equivalent to the Ams?  As most AMs have little to no chance of making the weekend?

[Silent]

I voted for 'no'. The fact that because of the limited field it's even more difficult to qualify for compared to any other major, makes the tournament even more 'special' than it already is. Let's keep it that way.

[jsgolfer]

So the other poll would be, is it easier to make the Cut at the Master's or a normal event?

[skydog]

I think the Masters is darn near perfect in every way, so I'm biased, but no I wouldn't support an expanded field. (Speaking of which, why are there all these polls trying to change this perfect event !? ) I think the limited field is part of what separates the Masters from the other majors and helps to give it that familiar feel that we love about it. Partially thanks to the genius of Alister Mackenzie and partially thanks to the limited field, more often than not we are treated to leaderboards filled only with the best players in the world. This is the way I like it.

[ChrisP]

No way. I think it's one of the things that makes the tournament unique and stand out. You fight to win a tournament in the fall and winter just so you can get into the Masters. It helps give the tournaments its identity. You get the best of the best which is what you want.

Just look at the leaderboard. Would you be as excited if you saw a Stephen Bodwitch as -7 and Johnson Wagner mixed in there at -6?, with maybe an Andrew Putnam at -5? I love having all the stars up at the top.

[jsgolfer]

  ChrisP said:

No way. I think it's one of the things that makes the tournament unique and stand out. You fight to win a tournament in the fall and winter just so you can get into the Masters. It helps give the tournaments its identity. You get the best of the best which is what you want.

Just look at the leaderboard. Would you be as excited if you saw a Stephen Bodwitch as -7 and Johnson Wagner mixed in there at -6?, with maybe an Andrew Putnam at -5? I love having all the stars up at the top.

But I wouldn't mind Daniel Berger, Nick Watney, Harris English or Shawn Stefani.

[ChrisP]

  jsgolfer said:

But I wouldn't mind Daniel Berger, Nick Watney, Harris English or Shawn Stefani.

They need to earn their way in, though. Those players had their chances to win the last couple months and didn't do it. The penalty for not getting the job done is not going to Augusta.

[SavvySwede]

I voted to keep it the same. Because the Masters champion is invited for life you'd want to minimize the chance of a no name player having a fluke win like Ben Curtis at the British open. I can imagine him still playing at 50+years old and people in the gallery going "Who the heck is this guy?"

[MEfree]

I voted Yes- I think the Masters is typically a great tournament to watch and the limited field may help with that, but I think they could expand things a bit to make it even better.  i.e. Leaving Ernie Els out the year he won the Open and was ranked inside the OWGR top 60 at the time of the Masters was a travesty.

I would advocate including all Major winners ranked inside the OWGR Top 100, the OWGR Top 60 (both the week before and week of the Masters) and the current year Fed Ex Cup Top 30 (both week before and week of the Masters).

[saevel25]

I voted No. I like the limited field.

[rkim291968]

I voted yes.   Currently, it has limited field + aged/aging past winners who are past their prime.  It makes it easier to win than other events that attracts world's best players.

[MEfree]

  SavvySwede said:

I voted to keep it the same. Because the Masters champion is invited for life you'd want to minimize the chance of a no name player having a fluke win like Ben Curtis at the British open. I can imagine him still playing at 50+years old and people in the gallery going "Who the heck is this guy?"

Ben Curtis has certainly had an up & down career, but in addition to winning the Open, he has 3 other PGA Tour wins and has finished 2nd in the PGA & Players as well as some other major Top 10s.  Certainly not Tiger Woods, but he has played some very good golf at times even if many people have never heard of him.

As it stands, he has played in the Masters ~8 times, so he could have had a fluke win there under the current format (but hasn't posted very good results as I don't believe the course really suits his game).

[MrDC]

It's called The Masters for a reason, not the Pretty Gooders, leave it alone I say, I even wonder if the entry is too relaxed.

[David in FL]

I see no reason to dilute the quality of the field, and the tournament.

[disco111]

Here's a thought I want to throw out. Since there's a senior tour and there's seniors playing in the Masters, why don't they make an adjustment for the seniors, to perhaps make them more competitive. It's not very enjoying, watching seniors that can still play decently and some still very good (T. Watson) fall all over themselves trying to play a course that's just too long for them. Who wouldn't want to see Tom or another senior (take your pick) be in the thick of it. They changed the course to try to handle all the young big hitters with the new and improved equipment, so why not extend it the other way for the seniors?...................Your thoughts!......

[David in FL]

  disco111 said:

Here's a thought I want to throw out. Since there's a senior tour and there's seniors playing in the Masters, why don't they make an adjustment for the seniors, to perhaps make them more competitive. It's not very enjoying, watching seniors that can still play decently and some still very good (T. Watson) fall all over themselves trying to play a course that's just too long for them. Who wouldn't want to see Tom or another senior (take your pick) be in the thick of it. They changed the course to try to handle all the young big hitters with the new and improved equipment, so why not extend it the other way for the seniors?...................Your thoughts!......

Sure! And while we're at it, let's handicap the amateurs to make them more "competitive" too. Hell with enough strokes, I might even get in and have a chance!

[iacas]

  disco111 said:

Here's a thought I want to throw out. Since there's a senior tour and there's seniors playing in the Masters, why don't they make an adjustment for the seniors, to perhaps make them more competitive. It's not very enjoying, watching seniors that can still play decently and some still very good (T. Watson) fall all over themselves trying to play a course that's just too long for them. Who wouldn't want to see Tom or another senior (take your pick) be in the thick of it. They changed the course to try to handle all the young big hitters with the new and improved equipment, so why not extend it the other way for the seniors?...................Your thoughts!......

I think that's the dumbest thing I'm likely to read today. Possibly this week.

C'mon, man…

[disco111]

  iacas said:

I think that's the dumbest thing I'm likely to read today. Possibly this week.

C'mon, man…

OK man, just what is dumb about it?