Jump to content
Subscribe to the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 3709 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

0  

  1. 1. Should the Master's Increase The Players Field

    • Yes
      6
    • No
      32


Recommended Posts

  MEfree said:
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.

1. Those last three months also include the end of the Race to Dubai, the Australian Open, the South African Open, and a number of full-field events on the Sunshine, Australian, and Asian tours that attract stronger fields than the PGA Tour's wrap-around events. The limited-field events you mention only consist of players well within the top 50 in the world rankings to begin with, so they don't matter in this regard. You are proposing that Brooks Koepka, who made it into the top 50 by winning against a huge field in Turkey at the end of last year, would be staying at home if he was injured, took a couple of months off, or had any trouble adjusting to life on tour (obviously, he didn't), but Shawn Stefani, ranked 90th in the world right now, would be in the field on the strength of finishing second at the Mayakoba Classic. That's not an improvement. 2. Players don't come out of nowhere to win the Masters. Angel Cabrera was the worst-ranked player to win, and he was 69th in the world when he did it. The 100th-ranked player six years removed from a major title is no more legit than the 200th-ranked player three years removed from a major title. History suggests neither of them would have a shot.

  • Upvote 1

In my UnderArmour Links stand bag...

Driver: '07 Burner 9.5° (stiff graphite shaft)
Woods: SasQuatch 17° 4-Wood (stiff graphite shaft)
Hybrid: 4DX Ironwood 20° (stiff graphite shaft)Irons/Wedges: Apex Edge 3-PW, GW, SW (stiff shaft); Carnoustie 60° LWPutter: Rossa AGSI+ Corzina...


@MEfree you have been here long enough to know to multiquote. FWIW I think the field size is perfect.

"The expert golfer has maximum time to make minimal compensations. The poorer player has minimal time to make maximum compensations." - And no, I'm not Mac. Please do not PM me about it. I just think he is a crazy MFer and we could all use a little more crazy sometimes.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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

I'm a Berger fan but as someone else said, being good isn't good enough for Augusta. If we loosen the criteria for invitations then it won't be the Masters anymore. A true master of anything will acquire enough wins to make the field legitimately.

I apologize for having a spam URL in my signature and will not do it again.


Note: This thread is 3709 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    TourStriker
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Well done, young man! 👍👍 Wordle 1,449 4/6 ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜ 🟩⬜⬜🟨🟨 🟩🟩🟨⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • I'd take the flawless swing. (Although we could have a lively discussion over whether or not such a thing exists....)  With a really great swing you can get far more GIR's and NGIR's then without one and approach shots carry such a high separation value.  Without needing to work on my flawless swing I could devote my valuable practice time to short game. 
    • Wordle 1,449 2/6* 🟩⬛⬛🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • I saw a clip of Rafael Nadal's golf swing on X and it made me think of this topic.     Supposedly he is a 0 handicap. I am not sure I would play golf in public with a swing that awkward looking. IDK, maybe my swing is that awkward🤣. So if you are not a plus handicap, would you rather have Nadal's swing and a 0.0 HI, or not?
    • Wordle 1,449 4/6 ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟩 🟨⬜⬜🟨🟩 ⬜🟨🟨🟩🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...