Masters Field Size

[jsgolfer]

Sometimes, yes. Maybe it's just me, but the inevitable list of no-names who grace the US open and PGA leaderboards for the first day or two every year don't do much to get me excited. Golf is a fickle game and I don't really want an unproven random guy catching lightning in a bottle for four days and winning the Masters. It doesn't feel right.

I guess I just must be different, I don't need Spieth, Woods, Mickelson, McElroy, Day and the other top names to win every tournament they play in.  I just want to see good golf, and a close tournament.  I never expect the no names to win the Master's, I'm not talking about adding 50 players to the field, another 10-12 would at last make the field a little stronger.

If it wasn't for Hoffman, this would be like last years US Open when Kaymer blew everyone away and the tournament lost it's luster. Hoffman is no household name.

[Shorty]

should limited field events with questionable field strength be considered majors just because they make for good TV viewing?

Oh...this one again.

If you don't think it's a major, fine.

Problem for you is that it is a major.  More than a handful of people are happy with that, oddly enough.

As for "questionable" field strength I think quality and not quantity is the crux of the matter.

Tiger, Palmer, Player, Nicklaus, Faldo, Scott, Seve etc all got a gimme here did they?

In any case, it is a "full field" event. Those filling the invitation criteria have all qualified.

And, as Iacas said, what has TV got to do with major status?

[disco111]

Then that locks it up: dumbest thing I'll hear this week.

If the reasons why are not evident, then I don't know what to tell you.

I mean, seriously man… I'm gonna chalk it up to a giant brain fart and move on. Scrubbing from memory in 3… 2… 1…

Congrats..........You just won my "Full of Myself" of the year award. Oh, and just for informational sake, I doubt there's anything that you could tell me that wouldn't sound offensive one way or another.

[saevel25]

Congrats..........You just won my "Full of Myself" of the year award. Oh, and just for informational sake, I doubt there's anything that you could tell me that wouldn't sound offensive one way or another.

Sounds to me you are to thinned skinned to handle any sort of rebuttal about what you said.

The truth is your comments on using different set of tees in a Major is stupid. Honestly it is an insult to those golfers who still want to tee it up. I would love to see you walk up to Tom Watson and say, "Sorry guys you have to play from the forward tees". I'd think he would call you stupid for suggesting it.

[Golfingdad]

Sounds to me you are to thinned skinned to handle any sort of rebuttal about what you said.

The truth is your comments on using different set of tees in a Major is stupid. Honestly it is an insult to those golfers who still want to tee it up. I would love to see you walk up to Tom Watson and say, "Sorry guys you have to play from the forward tees". I'd think he would call you stupid for suggesting it.

Agreed.  You can pick on @iacas all you want, but you're going to be hard pressed to find a single person that knows anything about golf that wouldn't also say that that is a really, really dumb idea.

No less dumb than suggesting the amateurs could use handicaps, or allowing the seniors to use non conforming equipment, or how about allow them 4 caddies and 100 clubs?

The fact is, you're suggesting DIFFERENT rules amongst the competitors in a major championship sporting event.  Nothing could possibly be any dumber than that.

[Shorty]

Congrats..........You just won my "Full of Myself" of the year award. Oh, and just for informational sake, I doubt there's anything that you could tell me that wouldn't sound offensive one way or another.

Disco111 -

Can I just confirm that your opinion is as follows:

Some of the older players are competitive

The length of the course makes them uncompetitive

Shortening it makes them competitive.

You're not coming across as the wedge in the bag with the cleanest grooves.

I suggest you quit before you make yourself look irredeemably clueless rather than just clueless.

And.....to boot, you boast about being easily offended.  Great.

[MrDC]

Yup, it's one of the big reasons the Masters is the major of the majors.

[Natural Patrick]

Yup, it's one of the big reasons the Masters is the major of the majors.

That may be but, I will be in the minority in saying this. I have always thought out of all the majors and I will throw in the Players championship as well. The Masters has the weakest field.

[MEfree]

Oh...this one again.

If you don't think it's a major, fine.

Problem for you is that it is a major.  More than a handful of people are happy with that, oddly enough.

As for "questionable" field strength I think quality and not quantity is the crux of the matter.

Tiger, Palmer, Player, Nicklaus, Faldo, Scott, Seve etc all got a gimme here did they?

In any case, it is a "full field" event. Those filling the invitation criteria have all qualified.

And, as Iacas said, what has TV got to do with major status?

The Masters is my favorite tournament.  I have no problem with it being considered a major but think that adding a handful of top players would make it even better.  In 2012 how did including Sandy Lyle, ranked outside the Top 1400 in the OWGR and leaving out Ernie Els, ranked inside the top 60 improve the QUALITY of the field?

Straw man. "Good TV viewing" is not what makes The Masters a major.

So in your mind, what makes it a major?  To me, the most important factor is the golf course, not the limited field.  Its a beautiful course everyone wants to play that tends to set up exciting finishes which makes for good TV.  Which of us would be talking about the Masters if it wasn't on TV?

[iacas]

Which of us would be talking about the Masters if it wasn't on TV?

Uhm…? What?

Who cares what my opinion is on "why the Masters is a major." It is.

[Golfingdad]

That may be but, I will be in the minority in saying this. I have always thought out of all the majors and I will throw in the Players championship as well. The Masters has the weakest field.

I don't really think you are in the minority.  I would have been one to argue against you, however, I did a little research and you have stats on your side, so I won't.  My thought was, "yeah, yeah, I get that the field is smaller and that there are a lot of good players out there who don't qualify ... but can any of them really win?  And if they can't win, then are they really 'strengthening' the field if they're added?"

But then I realized that that is an easy get, so I looked it up.  So here's a trivia question:

How many times since the year 2000 was a major won by somebody who did not qualify to play in the Masters that year?  The answer (I did it quick, so apologies if I missed something) is 7.  Seven times in the last 15 years somebody has won a major in the same calendar year where they were not qualifed** to play in the Masters.

**Disclaimer:  I'm making an assumption here that none of these guys voluntarily skipped the Masters.  I'm jumping from DNP to "not qualified" so there's a possibility of an error there.

US Open:  Michael Campbell in 2005 (who also finished T5 in the British and T6 in the PGA same year), Lucas Glover in 2009 (5th place in PGA same year).

British Open:  2003 Ben Curtis, 2011 Darren Clarke

PGA:  2002 Rich Beem, 2003 Shawn Micheel, 2011 Keegan Bradley

So it's hard to argue that its not the weakest field when there are guys in all of the other majors capable of winning, that weren't invited to the Masters.

[iacas]

US Open:  Michael Campbell in 2005 (who also finished T5 in the British and T6 in the PGA same year), Lucas Glover in 2009 (5th place in PGA same year).

British Open:  2003 Ben Curtis, 2011 Darren Clarke

PGA:  2002 Rich Beem, 2003 Shawn Micheel, 2011 Keegan Bradley

So it's hard to argue that its not the weakest field when there are guys in all of the other majors capable of winning, that weren't invited to the Masters.

How many of them qualified for the other majors after the Masters?

Keegan Bradley, for example, I'm not sure he was eligible for any of the majors that year until the PGA by virtue of how he'd played that PGA Tour season. You see what I mean? The Masters occurs in April. Some players might not have had a good enough season that, even if you expanded the field, may still not qualify. In other words, had their major been played in April, they may not have qualified (or won) it either.

But yes, undoubtedly there are some players who aren't qualified but could win.

[Golfingdad]

How many of them qualified for the other majors after the Masters?

Keegan Bradley, for example, I'm not sure he was eligible for any of the majors that year until the PGA by virtue of how he'd played that PGA Tour season. You see what I mean? The Masters occurs in April. Some players might not have had a good enough season that, even if you expanded the field, may still not qualify. In other words, had their major been played in April, they may not have qualified (or won) it either.

But yes, undoubtedly there are some players who aren't qualified but could win.

Yes, fair point.  Those 5 guys who won either a British Open or PGA were not qualified for ANY of the majors in that same calendar year prior to that win.

No way to really know without really getting into it, or making some guesses, but you are right that it's possible (even likely) that were the majors played in random order, many of these guys could have missed out qualifying for the first one, no matter what the criteria.

[MEfree]

I don't really think you are in the minority.  I would have been one to argue against you, however, I did a little research and you have stats on your side, so I won't.  My thought was, "yeah, yeah, I get that the field is smaller and that there are a lot of good players out there who don't qualify ... but can any of them really win?  And if they can't win, then are they really 'strengthening' the field if they're added?"

But then I realized that that is an easy get, so I looked it up.  So here's a trivia question:

How many times since the year 2000 was a major won by somebody who did not qualify to play in the Masters that year?  The answer (I did it quick, so apologies if I missed something) is 7.  Seven times in the last 15 years somebody has won a major in the same calendar year where they were not qualifed** to play in the Masters.

**Disclaimer:  I'm making an assumption here that none of these guys voluntarily skipped the Masters.  I'm jumping from DNP to "not qualified" so there's a possibility of an error there.

US Open:  Michael Campbell in 2005 (who also finished T5 in the British and T6 in the PGA same year), Lucas Glover in 2009 (5th place in PGA same year).

British Open:  2003 Ben Curtis, 2011 Darren Clarke

PGA:  2002 Rich Beem, 2003 Shawn Micheel, 2011 Keegan Bradley

So it's hard to argue that its not the weakest field when there are guys in all of the other majors capable of winning, that weren't invited to the Masters.

I think you left off Ernie Els 2012 Open Win from that list.

While Erik is right that some on your list wouldn't have qualified for the major they won had it been played in April, that wouldn't have been the case for Els (and possibly others).  In fact, he had played in 24 straight majors and was inside the OWGR Top 60 before not being invited to Augusta in 2012, then proceeded to place 9th at the US Open before winning the Open.  The 2012 Rookie of the Year, John Huh, who posted a victory in February 2012, was also left out of that same tournament.

If Rory doesn't win a major for 5 years and is ranked 51st in the world, would you like to see him get snubbed by Augusta and not get an extra chance to complete the Grand Slam?

[iacas]

If Rory doesn't win a major for 5 years and is ranked 51st in the world, would you like to see him get snubbed by Augusta and not get an extra chance to complete the Grand Slam?

Absolutely. He also have to beat pretty bad in other ways as well. No tour wins, outside the top 50 in the world, etc. Els didn't deserve to be in the Masters that year. He was playing pretty badly. He had a chance to get inside the top 50 and didn't even manage that. You could probably make the case that not qualifying for the Masters is what drove him to work hard and led to his British Open victory.

[Infamous 273]

No. Billy Payne addressed the size of the field in his interview this week. An increased field wouldn't do well with the amount of daylight available in early April. Throw in a couple of weather delays, and you'd be looking at Monday finish.

[Golfingdad]

I think you left off Ernie Els 2012 Open Win from that list.   While Erik is right that some on your list wouldn't have qualified for the major they won had it been played in April, that wouldn't have been the case for Els (and possibly others).  In fact, he had played in 24 straight majors and was inside the OWGR Top 60 before not being invited to Augusta in 2012, then proceeded to place 9th at the US Open before winning the Open.  The 2012 Rookie of the Year, John Huh, who posted a victory in February 2012, was also left out of that same tournament.   If Rory doesn't win a major for 5 years and is ranked 51st in the world, would you like to see him get snubbed by Augusta and not get an extra chance to complete the Grand Slam?

Most definitely. And you're using the wrong word ... "Snubbed" only applies when there are subjective criteria involved. The masters uses 100% objective criteria - it's impossible to be snubbed.

[MEfree]

Absolutely. He also have to beat pretty bad in other ways as well. No tour wins, outside the top 50 in the world, etc.

Els didn't deserve to be in the Masters that year. He was playing pretty badly. He had a chance to get inside the top 50 and didn't even manage that.

You could probably make the case that not qualifying for the Masters is what drove him to work hard and led to his British Open victory.

What do you mean by "pretty badly"?  In the 8 tournaments he played in 2012 leading up to the Masters, he had made every cut with 3 Top 5 finishes.  During the 3 weeks before the Masters, his worst finish was t12 with 2 Top 5s...for a lot of guys, that would be a pretty good run.

Shell Houston Open	USA	13	2012	T12	5.75	-	-	58th
Arnold Palmer Invitational presented by MasterCard	USA	12	2012	T4	10.96	-	-	58th
Transitions Championship	USA	11	2012	T5	11.31	-	-	62nd
Honda Classic	USA	9	2012	T21	2.93	-	-	65th
WGC - Accenture Match Play Championship	USA	8	2012	T17	4.42	-	-	65th
Northern Trust Open	USA	7	2012	T59	-	-	-	68th
Farmers Insurance Open	USA	4	2012	T52	-	-	-	59th
Volvo Golf Champions	EUR	3	2012	T2	16.00	-	-	57th

By comparison, Sandy Lyle's best finish in the 2 years leading up to the 2012 Masters was t64

MASTERS TOURNAMENT

USA

14

2012

MC

-

-

-

1437th

Alfred Dunhill Links Championship	EUR	40	2011	T64	-	-	-	1376th
The 140th OPEN CHAMPIONSHIP	EUR	29	2011	MC	-	-	-	1379th
The Barclays Scottish Open	EUR	28	2011	MC	-	-	-	1378th
MASTERS TOURNAMENT	USA	15	2011	MC	-	-	-	1346th

THE 139th OPEN CHAMPIONSHIP	EUR	29	2010	MC	-	-	-	942nd
MASTERS TOURNAMENT	USA	15	2010	MC	-	-	-	839th
AT&T; Pebble Beach National Pro-Am	USA	7	2010	MC	-	-	-	784th