Masters Field Size

[saevel25]

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.

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

Yes Sandy Lyle has a Master's Jacket and Els doesn't.

Also, even with those performances Els was still outside the top 50 in the world rankings.

[MEfree]

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.

So why have some players like Ryo Ishikawa gotten "Special" invites?

http://www.pgatour.com/news/2013/01/11/ishikawa-masters.html

" Ishikawa came under more scrutiny last year when he received an invitation ahead of Ernie Els, who had fallen out of the top 50. Els went on to win the British Open for his fourth major championship.  The special exemptions, however, typically go to players who are not PGA TOUR members, and the Masters looks mainly at Asian players because of its television contracts and the rapid growth and interest in golf in the region."

[iacas]

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.

Matt answers nicely for me:

Also, even with those performances Els was still outside the top 50 in the world rankings.

Ernie made a late push to qualify but came up a day late and a dollar short.

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

Seriously? You're comparing Sandy Lyle - who won a green jacket - to Ernie Els?

So why have some players like Ryo Ishikawa gotten "Special" invites?

http://www.pgatour.com/news/2013/01/11/ishikawa-masters.html

"Ishikawa came under more scrutiny last year when he received an invitation ahead of Ernie Els, who had fallen out of the top 50. Els went on to win the British Open for his fourth major championship.  The special exemptions, however, typically go to players who are not PGA TOUR members, and the Masters looks mainly at Asian players because of its television contracts and the rapid growth and interest in golf in the region."

You answered your own question.

[Golfingdad]

So why have some players like Ryo Ishikawa gotten "Special" invites? [URL=http://www.pgatour.com/news/2013/01/11/ishikawa-masters.html]http://www.pgatour.com/news/2013/01/11/ishikawa-masters.html[/URL] " Ishikawa came under more scrutiny last year when he received an invitation ahead of Ernie Els, who had fallen out of the top 50. Els went on to win the British Open for his fourth major championship.  The special exemptions, however, typically go to players who are not PGA TOUR members, and the Masters looks mainly at Asian players because of its television contracts and the rapid growth and interest in golf in the region."

My mistake. However that question is answered in the quote.

[MEfree]

Seriously? You're comparing Sandy Lyle - who won a green jacket - to Ernie Els?

I think Els might be insulted by the comparison.  Sandy Lyle has had a nice career and his Masters win wasn't a fluke but Els has had the better career and was playing much better than Lyle in 2012.  I'd even argue that Els has had a better track record at the Masters than Lyle.

Lyle- 1 Top 10 (his win) & 15 missed cuts prior to 2012

Els- 2 solo 2nds, 6 Top 10s & only 4 missed cuts prior to 2012

I don't mind the Masters tradition of letting past Champions play, but think they should also include multiple major winners ranked inside the OWGR Top 60.  You might think that Els was playing "pretty badly" at the time of the 2012 Masters, but he was playing a lot better than some guys who have gotten into the Masters and went on to win it.

I understand the argument against letting "no names" into the Masters, but what is the argument for excluding big name multiple major winners who are playing well enough to have a chance to win?

[Golfingdad]

I think Els might be insulted by the comparison.  Sandy Lyle has had a nice career and his Masters win wasn't a fluke but Els has had the better career and was playing much better than Lyle in 2012.  I'd even argue that Els has had a better track record at the Masters than Lyle.

Lyle- 1 Top 10 (his win) & 15 missed cuts prior to 2012

Els- 2 solo 2nds, 6 Top 10s & only 4 missed cuts prior to 2012

I don't mind the Masters tradition of letting past Champions play, but think they should also include multiple major winners ranked inside the OWGR Top 60.  You might think that Els was playing "pretty badly" at the time of the 2012 Masters, but he was playing a lot better than some guys who have gotten into the Masters and went on to win it.

I understand the argument against letting "no names" into the Masters, but what is the argument for excluding big name multiple major winners who are playing well enough to have a chance to win?

And then when a major winner later in his career goes through a similar slump-then-resurgence to Ernie but happens to be OWGR ranked 61 ... then what?

60 is no less arbitrary than 50, or 40, or 30, or 80.  Line has to be drawn somewhere, no?

[Shorty]

I don't mind the Masters tradition of letting past Champions play, but think they should also include multiple major winners ranked inside the OWGR Top 60.

It's quite simple, really.

There are criteria that have to be met in order to qualify. They make the rules.

Makes it simpler.

Not sure that someone who hasn't qualified would want to be there.

[MEfree]

And then when a major winner later in his career goes through a similar slump-then-resurgence to Ernie but happens to be OWGR ranked 61 ... then what?

60 is no less arbitrary than 50, or 40, or 30, or 80.  Line has to be drawn somewhere, no?

I agree the line has to be drawn somewhere but the committee does retain the discretion to invite others.  For me, I would draw the line at OWGR #100 for past major winners.  The Masters has plenty of guys in the field ranked outside the top 50, and everyone inside the top 100 gets into the PGA, so why not include past major winners inside the top 100 in the Masters?

It's quite simple, really.

There are criteria that have to be met in order to qualify. They make the rules.

Makes it simpler.

Not sure that someone who hasn't qualified would want to be there.

Ryo Ishikowa has accepted at least 3 Special Invites (and I don't blame him as he was ranked #51 one of those times).  Do you know of anyone who has turned down a special invite?

The fact of the matter is that the Masters qualifying criteria has changed over the years.  For a period, not all regular PGA Tour wins got you in the Masters.  Now, winning any tournament that awards full Fed Ex Cup Points gets you in.  Top 30 of the previous years money list used to get you in, now it is making the Tour Championship, which allows for a guy like Cameron Tringale who has never had an OWGR better than #69, never won an event and never been inside the Top 30 on the money list to get in (by virtue of a high finish in the 1st tournament of last years playoffs).  Some years a Top 16 at the Masters got you a return invite, now it is the Top 12.  http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/augusta-national-changes-qualifying-criteria-masters/

Years ago, the OWGR played no part in who went to Augusta, now it plays a critical role.  While the OWGR is good, some feel it is biased for/against certain tours and it is a fact that their "unique" way of computing "average" points can result in an older win (close to 2 years ago) hurting your "average" compared to if you had skipped the event- It is possible for this to be the difference between a guy being ranked #49 or #51.

Yes, the Masters Committee determines the selection criteria, but they have tweaked it throughout the years and this thread is all about the golfing public's opinion on how it should possibly be tweaked going forward.  Who do you think is more deserving of a Masters invite?  A multiple major winner who is ranked just outside the OWGR Top 50, a guy like Cameron Tringale who posted 1 good (non-winning) result in the previous years playoffs, a guy who is inside the Top 25 of the current season (which has more meat to it with the new wrap-around format), a guy won a major 3-5 years ago but is outside the current Top 200, a guy who pumped up his year end OWGR ranking during the silly season (which is given more weight at year end in the OWGR than the previous years majors), but is now outside the Top 50, etc.???

[iacas]

And naturally this has devolved into a typical @MEfree argument, willfully ignoring points and twisting stuff around…

I think Els might be insulted by the comparison.

I doubt it. He realizes Sandy Lyle won a Masters, and that he has not. That's like saying Els would be insulted by Ben Crenshaw being able to play in the Masters (he of the first-round 91 or whatever).

Sandy Lyle has had a nice career and his Masters win wasn't a fluke but Els has had the better career and was playing much better than Lyle in 2012.

Sandy Lyle won the Masters. He wasn't qualified for all of the majors that year, he was (and is this year too) qualified for the Masters because one of the majors he DID win WAS the Masters.

If Ernie had held off Phil in 2004 he'd have been qualified to play in the Masters too, regardless of his OWGR.

I don't mind the Masters tradition of letting past Champions play, but think they should also include multiple major winners ranked inside the OWGR Top 60.

In other words, you're simply in favor of a different arbitrary qualification. I am not. Neither, apparently, is Augusta National right now.

I understand the argument against letting "no names" into the Masters, but what is the argument for excluding big name multiple major winners who are playing well enough to have a chance to win?

Ernie knew the criteria. He failed to get inside the top 50. So, per the qualifying criteria, he was clearly not playing "well enough" to even qualify for the Masters, thus making it impossible to win it. :)

I agree the line has to be drawn somewhere but the committee does retain the discretion to invite others.  For me, I would draw the line at OWGR #100 for past major winners.

You realize you're not even being consistent, yes?

The Masters has plenty of guys in the field ranked outside the top 50, and everyone inside the top 100 gets into the PGA, so why not include past major winners inside the top 100 in the Masters?

You've already been given - and seemingly ignored - one of the biggest reasons.

Daylight. In case you haven't noticed the Masters prefers to send everyone off #1 tee, too. The tournament is hosted in April, after all.

[Chilli Dipper]

Sandy Lyle won the Masters. He wasn't qualified for all of the majors that year, he was (and is this year too) qualified for the Masters because one of the majors he DID win WAS the Masters.

Now we're just bullying poor Sandy. He won a British Open, too! That's what made him eligible for all of those two or three other events he played last year! There are roughly 90-100 golfers at the Masters any year. Take away the past champions and the amateurs, the field is essentially the same as the ones at the WGC events at Doral and Firestone. No one complains about the weak field at either of those tourneys.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsgolfer

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.

This^^.  Every player has the opportunity to qualify for the Masters.  If you don't meet the requirements, then you don't play.  I think that fact that amateurs and past champions can play is one of the great things about this championship.  You either qualify, or you don't.  If a player doesn't qualify, this gives him a chance to stay home for a week and work on his game so that maybe he can qualify for next year's Masters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MEfree

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.

No, the Masters is a major because of its tradition and because it's played on one of the worlds truly great golf courses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by disco111

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.

That's for sure.  This isn't a bunch of amateurs in a club tournament.  This is a major, and if a player doesn't feel he belongs, then he can decline the invitation.  Suggesting that they play different tees in one of golf's Major Championships is just silly.  Talk about reducing the impact of the tournament, sheesh!

Who wants to win a "sort of but not quite major"?

[MEfree]

In other words, you're simply in favor of a different arbitrary qualification. I am not. Neither, apparently, is Augusta National right now.

Ernie knew the criteria. He failed to get inside the top 50. So, per the qualifying criteria, he was clearly not playing "well enough" to even qualify for the Masters, thus making it impossible to win it. :)

You've already been given - and seemingly ignored - one of the biggest reasons.

Daylight. In case you haven't noticed the Masters prefers to send everyone off #1 tee, too. The tournament is hosted in April, after all.

Correct, I am in favor of a different arbitrary qualification that I think would strengthen the field and be consistent with what has made the Masters so great.

The Committee has said they like to have between 90-100 players at least in part for the daylight considerations you mentioned.  The Masters seems to be about the same time each year, so if daylight was the only consideration, I think they could have a fixed number like the other majors.

You are right that Ernie did not play well enough at the right time and in the right tournaments to qualify for the 2012 Masters based on the qualifying criteria at the time BUT I think he was playing well enough to have a chance to win the tournament had he gotten in.  Evidence- He won the Open later that year, he was in contention to win multiple times shortly before and after the Masters.  Leading into Augusta in 2012, Els finished t2, t52, t59, t17, t21, t5, t4, t12.  By comparison, Nicklaus finished t60, cut, t39, cut, t47, w/d, cut leading up to his 1986 Masters win, Angel Cabrera finished cut, t13, t33, t32, cut, cut leading up to his 2009 Win and Mickelson finished 19, t45, t8, t24, t14, t30, t35 leading up to his 2010 win.  My point is that former major winners with a legit chance to win should be given the chance to play.

Here are the changes I would make- some would add players, some would subtract:

Include all major winners ranked inside the OWGR Top 100 and multiple major winners inside the Top 120

Include the current PGA Tour Fed Ex Top 20

Include the OWGR Top 50 both the week before and week of the Masters.  Use 51+ as alternates to fill the field if below a certain designated # (say 100 players)

Do NOT include the OWGR year end Top 50 (as this ranking is too influenced by silly season events)

Reduce the 5 year exemption for other major winners to 3 years

Limit Past Masters Champions to those that are in the OWGR Top 500, made a cut at Augusta in the last 5 years, won a PGA/Euro Tour event in the last 5 years, won a Senior Tour event in the last 5 years, finished Top 10 in a Senior Tour Event in the last 2 years OR made a cut in a regular PGA/Euro Tour event in the last 2 years.

Edit- I would also include the current year top 20 OWGR point earners.

[MEfree]

No, the Masters is a major because of its tradition and because it's played on one of the worlds truly great golf courses.

I agree with this 100% but will add that it is the quality of the golf course (much more than the limited nature of the field) that has made for great TV viewing- Not only is the course beautiful, but it is one where you can make up a lead (with good shots being rewarded) and hard to hold a lead (with poor shots often paying a high price) that has made for some very exciting finishes.

[iacas]

@MEfree , I don't appreciate the intellectual dishonesty of appearing to quote my full post but failing to do so. I chop quotes up, but I respond only to those pieces, and it never appears as though I'm quoting the full thing. Just as I'll do here:

Correct, I am in favor of a different arbitrary qualification that I think would strengthen the field and be consistent with what has made the Masters so great.

What would be consistent is to keep the field about the same size as it is.

It's one of the tougher "invitations" to a major out there. That's part of what makes it so special. Widening the net and taking in more golfers takes away some of that "specialness." If Ernie wanted to get in to the Masters in 2012 maybe he should have started to play better earlier. He knew the qualification criteria.

I disagree that they need to change the qualifications. So is that where we leave it? It is as far as I'm concerned. I do not care what changes you would make, and I do not agree with them.

[Chilli Dipper]

All of that is needlessly complicated. Nicklaus and Cabrera were already locked into the field in the years they won, thanks to being a past champion and a major champion in the last five years, respectively. They didn't have to play their way in, and any comparison between their results going into the Masters and any non-exempt player is irrelevant. Els stepped up his game in 2012 to try to qualify for the Masters, but he came up just a little short. It happens. Luckily for him, he doesn't have to worry about that again until 2018 at the earliest. Every major championship invites major champions from the last five years, and Players champions from the last three years. That's not changing. Why get rid of the year-end top 50? is a Masters invitation not a just reward for having a great year? You say it's too dependent on the results of the late-fall silly season. With the wrap-around PGA Tour schedule, so are the FedEx Cup standings at this time of year, and yet you want to add exemptions for performances in the minor tournaments the top pros don't play instead of the elite overseas events the top pros do play. That makes no sense if your argument is that the qualification process excludes strong players.

[turtleback]

It's quite simple, really.

There are criteria that have to be met in order to qualify. They make the rules.

Makes it simpler.

Not sure that someone who hasn't qualified would want to be there.

But of course they change the criteria from time to time so it is not unreasonable to talk about changes we would like to see.

For example, I personally would like to see them add a category giving a one time entry for any player who has qualified for 10 or more consecutive Masters and has not otherwise qualified. But that's just me.

It would be interesting to go back and see how many times such a provision would have brought someone in had it always been in effect.

[MEfree]

All of that is needlessly complicated.

Nicklaus and Cabrera were already locked into the field in the years they won, thanks to being a past champion and a major champion in the last five years, respectively. They didn't have to play their way in, and any comparison between their results going into the Masters and any non-exempt player is irrelevant.

Els stepped up his game in 2012 to try to qualify for the Masters, but he came up just a little short. It happens. Luckily for him, he doesn't have to worry about that again until 2018 at the earliest.

Every major championship invites major champions from the last five years, and Players champions from the last three years. That's not changing.

Why get rid of the year-end top 50? is a Masters invitation not a just reward for having a great year? You say it's too dependent on the results of the late-fall silly season. With the wrap-around PGA Tour schedule, so are the FedEx Cup standings at this time of year, and yet you want to add exemptions for performances in the minor tournaments the top pros don't play instead of the elite overseas events the top pros do play. That makes no sense if your argument is that the qualification process excludes strong players.

The OWGR are actually based on results over the past 24 months with the most weight given to the last 13 weeks.  So the year end top 50 gives the most weight to events held in October-December which includes events like Tigers and the Nederbank in which EVERYONE who plays gets OWGR points.  The Fed Ex Cup does not include these limited field events and about half the PGA Tour Fed Ex season is now in the books by the time the Masters is played.

To me, a major Champion from 4 to 5 years ago (or a Masters Champion from 20+ years ago) who is ranked outside OWGR Top 200+ is not as much of a contender for the title as a major Champion from 6+ years ago who is currently ranked within the top 100.

The reason I compared Els play to those Masters winners was to show that he was playing well enough to have a legit shot to win.  My guess is that had he been in the field, he would have been one of the top 20 betting favorites having had 2 top 5s and a t12 the 3 weeks before Augusta.

I agree that the limited field makes it extra special to get into the Masters, but also feel that being able to play a great golf course that is not open to the public also adds to the allure.  Expanding the field to 100 by adding more players who have a legit chance to win would not take away from this.

[MEfree]

But of course they change the criteria from time to time so it is not unreasonable to talk about changes we would like to see.

For example, I personally would like to see them add a category giving a one time entry for any player who has qualified for 10 or more consecutive Masters and has not otherwise qualified. But that's just me.

It would be interesting to go back and see how many times such a provision would have brought someone in had it always been in effect.

In 2012, it would have brought Els in- he had played 18 straight Masters with 14 made cuts (along with 5 straight top 6 finishes from 2000-4)