Masters Field Size

[Golfingdad]

OK man, just what is dumb about it?

I think maybe you weren't too clear.  Were you suggesting that they shorten the course for EVERYBODY so the seniors and shorter hitters could compete again, possibly?  Because I think most of us read that as you are suggesting the shorten it just for the seniors, as in let them play separate tees, and that is why you're getting that response.

If it's the former, he wouldn't have said that.  He'd likely still disagree though, because all that means is that the young guys are going to shoot -25 and the seniors are still going to miss the cut and be 25 strokes behind, but they'll do it at "even par" instead of at +10.  Whats the difference?

[disco111]

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!

Now that's dumb!.......................................................

[iacas]

I think maybe you weren't too clear.  Were you suggesting that they shorten the course for EVERYBODY so the seniors and shorter hitters could compete again, possibly?  Because I think most of us read that as you are suggesting the shorten it just for the seniors, as in let them play separate tees, and that is why you're getting that response.

If it's the former, he wouldn't have said that.  He'd likely still disagree though, because all that means is that the young guys are going to shoot -25 and the seniors are still going to miss the cut and be 25 strokes behind, but they'll do it at "even par" instead of at +10.  Whats the difference?

I think it's dumb either way he meant it. If he meant it as just changing it for the seniors but making others play the regular course, then it's extra dumb.

The seniors are not the ones we care about. They have their own majors. Distance is an advantage.

[David in FL]

Now that's dumb!.......................................................

Sarcasm......

[disco111]

I think maybe you weren't too clear.  Were you suggesting that they shorten the course for EVERYBODY so the seniors and shorter hitters could compete again, possibly?  Because I think most of us read that as you are suggesting the shorten it just for the seniors, as in let them play separate tees, and that is why you're getting that response.

If it's the former, he wouldn't have said that.  He'd likely still disagree though, because all that means is that the young guys are going to shoot -25 and the seniors are still going to miss the cut and be 25 strokes behind, but they'll do it at "even par" instead of at +10.  Whats the difference?

Appreciate your response in trying to clarify, but I thought it was very straight forward. Seniors play from separate tees. I fail to see where or why folks get their nickers in a twist and get smart mouthed in their responses. As I stated prior, they changed the course length to try and curtail the young guns and it doesn't seem to be working, but it's removing just about all of the seniors who still have game. This was only a what if suggestion and not meant to incur the wrath of the keyboard warrior clan.............

[iacas]

Seniors play from separate tees.

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…

[MEfree]

• disco111 - Your idea is fine for silly season tournaments but not a tournament that is suppose to determine the best golfer.  If you are going to give seniors an advantage, why not give an advantage to women, juniors and anyone under a certain weight (as they tend to hit is shorter also)?

[MEfree]

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

Back to the OP...do you think the current selection criteria results in the strongest field possible?  Wouldn't the quality of the field be less diluted if they simply took the OWGR Top 90 instead of including the AMs and Ben Crenshaws?  Wouldn't including OWGR 51 to 60, Major Winners inside the OWGR Top 100 and current Fed Ex Top 30 actually strengthen the overall field (assuming you keep Ben and the AMs)?

[iacas]

Back to the OP...do you think the current selection criteria results in the strongest field possible?  Wouldn't the quality of the field be less diluted if they simply took the OWGR Top 90 instead of including the AMs and Ben Crenshaws?  Wouldn't including OWGR 51 to 60, Major Winners inside the OWGR Top 100 and current Fed Ex Top 30 actually strengthen the overall field (assuming you keep Ben and the AMs)?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the strength the field is high. I think they're simply saying it doesn't matter Or even helps make the Masters special.

[MEfree]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the strength the field is high. I think they're simply saying it doesn't matter Or even helps make the Masters special.

I don't disagree with that but should limited field events with questionable field strength be considered majors just because they make for good TV viewing?  Won't including all major winners inside the OWGR Top 100 both strengthen the field AND make for better TV viewing?

[iacas]

I don't disagree with that but should limited field events with questionable field strength be considered majors just because they make for good TV viewing?

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

[saevel25]

I don't disagree with that but should limited field events with questionable field strength be considered majors just because they make for good TV viewing?  Won't including all major winners inside the OWGR Top 100 both strengthen the field AND make for better TV viewing?

Not really. The Masters is The Masters because the players value that tournament above all others. Same with the other venues. Heck the British Open wasn't even popular till Arnie made an effort to make it important. The winnings was too little versus the cost to fly over there for most people. If someone like Arnie didn't make it important then we might not be talking about that tournament at all today as it is now.

When the players stop caring about it then we have to worry.

[Dave2512]

Masters is it's own thing. Same course they honor past champions etc. Really no reason to compare it to other majors because it's not like other majors

[Patch]

If anything they should keep the field as small as possible. It's a major. Open it up to 100+ players would take away from it's value as a major.

If I had my way, I would decrease the number of players in all the regular tournaments. I would let the top 50 ranked players in the field, and the other 50 would come from a Monday/Tuesday qualifier, plus ties. This would make for a more competitive value for spectators, and TV audience. 150 is just too many.

[jsgolfer]

Back to the OP...do you think the current selection criteria results in the strongest field possible?  Wouldn't the quality of the field be less diluted if they simply took the OWGR Top 90 instead of including the AMs and Ben Crenshaws?  Wouldn't including OWGR 51 to 60, Major Winners inside the OWGR Top 100 and current Fed Ex Top 30 actually strengthen the overall field (assuming you keep Ben and the AMs)?

I would think there are a few guys that could be added that wouldn't dilute the field. I don't know what it is, but there are some decent players left out, a few I mentioned and even a couple of the guys from Europe.  Matt Jones for instance.  Right now, when the Master's begins there are at least 15-20 who have no chance, therefore it has to be easier to win this tournament than a regular tour event.  The Master's is my favorite tour event to watch, but having a few more golfers i don't think would dilute the field.  I don't know what that is, but even if it was the Top 75 on the World Golf Rankings instead of the Top 50.  That would only add a handful of other players and I think a few more good players makes it more interesting.  Although with Spieth lapping the field, maybe not.

But if they don't it won't bother me either, I love the Master's.

[krupa]

I came across this poll after reading some guy whine about the TV coverage for the Masters.  What's wrong with the way it is?

I will suggest a problem with changing it:  It becomes just another tournament.

Limited TV coverage, limited invitational field, past champions coming back, all make the Masters what it is.  Change them and you have just another PGA tournament.  whoopee.

[jsgolfer]

If anything they should keep the field as small as possible. It's a major. Open it up to 100+ players would take away from it's value as a major.

If I had my way, I would decrease the number of players in all the regular tournaments. I would let the top 50 ranked players in the field, and the other 50 would come from a Monday/Tuesday qualifier, plus ties. This would make for a more competitive value for spectators, and TV audience. 150 is just too many.

All other majors have a full field, does it take away from the US Open, the Open Championship or the PGA Championship?

[skydog]

All other majors have a full field, does it take away from the US Open, the Open Championship or the PGA Championship?

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.