There has been plenty of negative comments about past champions cluttering up the field and embarrassing themselves at recent Masters tournaments. I personally think Jack has a perfect solution for everyone involved (of course I did mention the same thing a few weeks back ).
Past Champions get the "lifetime" exemption that Bobby Jones wanted them to have (without receiving the dreaded Hootie letter), fans get to see the guys that helped make the Masters what it is today, and it helps strengthen the field by removing past champions that have no chance of even competing. Here's Jack's suggestion....what do you think?
I like the idea. They could get ESPN to cover some of the event like I believe they did for the Par 3 tournament this year. Let's say past champs over 65 or those who haven't made a cut in the past five years are eligible, and they go play the course at 6500 yards on Tuesday. I'd watch to see Arnie and Jack and company playing a course that they're capable of playing well on. We all want to see these guys still play, but not when they're only embarrassing themselves with 85s or even 106s.
I think it is a wonderful idea. Even though past Champions may not be unable to compete with the younger guys, their fans enjoy seeing them out on the course. The men earned their life-time exemptions and they should be afforded the opportunity to have their "day". It also exposes the younger generation to men that made golf the sport it is today. I believe one of the reasons the Champions Tour is popular is the fact that people enjoy seeing the older players out on the course.
(I look forward to the day that I will be embarrassed by a 106 or 85 )
I think they deserve to play, who wouldn't wanna watch them, i liked seeing jack hit some well shots and Im sure we will all enjoy seeing tiger hit good shots when he reaches that age one day
I'd love to see something like that. I like the idea of including 2nd place finishers too. I'd watch it. It should be an either/or thing. They could come up with some criteria to qualify the seniors for the main event, like Stads or Jack of a few years ago , who could conceivably still be competitive.
I think Jack's idea is a good start, but I'd take it a little further.
Have a two-round Legends Masters, played from the middle tees and actually keep track of the standings and yearly winners. Nothing official, mind you, but give these guys something to play for. And I think the crowds would dig it.
The Masters needs to change if it is to maintain its status as a Major. Cluttering up a small field with players who can not compete devalues the tournament. I think there should be a Champions Tour event at Augusta , with a selected field of past champions and grerat players. Then ,the Major tournament could be opened up to all of the top 100 players ,improving the quality of the field.
The Masters needs to change if it is to maintain its status as a Major. Cluttering up a small field with players who can not compete devalues the tournament. I think there should be a Champions Tour event at Augusta , with a selected field of past champions and grerat players. Then ,the Major tournament could be opened up to all of the top 100 players ,improving the quality of the field.
As Mr Ford once said, History is bunk .
The Masters will always maintain it's status as a Major, regardless of the size of the field. Hootie is on record as saying that there will only be one "tooniment" at Augusta, so it's unlikely that any type of past champions competition will happen anytime soon. That's not to say that some type of pre-tournament exhibition involving non-competitive past champions would be ruled out.
The Masters has never measured itself against the other majors as far as size and strength of field. The powers that be at Augusta National follow the path laid down by founder Bobby Jones.....and it works. That's just one of the things that distinguishes the Masters as the Major that most PGA players want to win the most. Does the Masters have the strongest field? No, and it never will have, but it is always going to be a Major.
The Masters needs to change if it is to maintain its status as a Major.
I don't think we have to worry about that, Lefty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaguegolf
Does the Masters have the strongest field? No, and it never will have...
Just because you invite a bunch of dreamers to qualify, or fill half your field with "B" players, doesn't mean you have a strong, or the strongest field.
The Masters' field is very exclusive. Aside from the ceremonial past champions, a player truly must be among the top players in the game in order to play at Augusta. It's this exclusivity which makes The Masters' field, in my opinion, the strongest field among the majors.
The Masters' field is very exclusive. Aside from the ceremonial past champions, a player truly must be among the top players in the game in order to play at Augusta. It's this exclusivity which makes The Masters' field, in my opinion, the strongest field among the majors.[/color][/b]
The Masters field is very exclusive.....literally. It excludes many players ranked in the Top 100 in the world. That's fine with me and I say let Hootie and the boys keep it as exclusive as they choose. You want in? You better be in the Top 50 World rankings, or be a Champion Amateur or else you're taking your chances. I think that's a good thing and it's one of the many things that set the Masters above the rest of the Majors.
You better be in the Top 50 World rankings, or be a Champion Amateur or else you're taking your chances. I think that's a good thing and it's one of the many things that set the Masters above the rest of the Majors.
Having a smaller field and weakening the fielld makes the MAsters the weakest of the MAjors. In pure golf competition terms, the MAsters is below the other MAjors , and is regarded as the easiest to win ,partly due to the fact it is held at the same place each year.Looking at the overseas success over the last twenty odd years, it is no suprise that Seve,Langer,Ollie,Sandy ,Nick and Woosie had more luck there than the other majors.When you play 75% of th emajors away from home, you tend to win the easiest one.
I agree that the Masters may have the weakest field (it's certainly the smallest) but saying it is the easiest to win based on that alone is a mistake. You won't find any Shaun Micheel's or Ben Curtis' wearing a green jacket.
A case can be made that the pressure involved by being in contention on the back nine on Sunday at Augusta makes the Masters the hardest of all to win, despite the weaker field. There is no weak top 10 on Sunday. For proof all you have to do is look at a list of winners of all 4 Majors from the last 20 years. If you use those winners as the "field" which of the 4 Majors is the strongest? Believe me.........it's no contest.
April 23rd, 2005, 11:15 AM
).
Even though past Champions may not be unable to compete with the younger guys, their fans enjoy seeing them out on the course. The men earned their life-time exemptions and they should be afforded the opportunity to have their "day". It also exposes the younger generation to men that made golf the sport it is today. I believe one of the reasons the Champions Tour is popular is the fact that people enjoy seeing the older players out on the course.
)
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
